C.C.E. & S.T.-Bhopal vs M/S. S D Bansal Iron & Steel (P) Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 65/BPL/2013 dated 27.02.2013 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Bhopal].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

C.C.E. & S.T.-Bhopal .Appellants

Vs.

M/s. S D Bansal Iron & Steel (P) Ltd. .Respondent

.

Appearance:

Shri G.R. Singh, DR for the Appellant

Shri Sumit Kumar Khabya, Consultant for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing: 02.07.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52103/2015-EX(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal:

Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein Ld. Commissioner (A) has allowed Cenvat Credit on MS Angle, Channel, Beams Pipes, Joints etc. after verifying the records. Respondent has also filed a cross objection.

2. The facts of the case are that during the period October 2007-March 2010 the respondent availed Cenvat Credit on MS Angle, Channel, Beams Pipes, Joints etc. An audit was conducted in the premises of the respondent and certain queries were raised to the respondent. Queries raised by the audit, the respondent replied that that these items were used for fabrication of induction furnace i.e. capital goods. Further, query was raised that as you have taken the Cenvat Credit on the items as capital goods in fact these are not capital goods these are inputs of capital goods. Thereafter, the show cause notice was issued to the respondent to deny the Cenvat Credit on items in question on the premises that these items are neither inputs nor capital goods as per Rule 2(a) and Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The show cause notice was adjudicated. Cenvat Credit was denied. Consequently, demand of duty was confirmed along with interest. Penalty was also imposed. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the Ld. Commissioner (A) for the amount of Rs. 12,40,024/-. On appeal Ld. Commissioner (A) examined the records and verified the facts of the case and allowed Cenvat Credit of Rs.12,40,024/-. Aggrieved from the said order Revenue is in appeal.

3. Heard the parties and perused the record.

4. I find that when the queries were raised to the respondent, it was replied by the respondent that these items have been used by the respondent for fabrication of induction furnace (Capital goods). This fact has not been disputed by the Revenue either in the show cause notice or during adjudication. In these circumstances, I observe that Ld. Commissioner (A) has verified the facts of the case and allowed Cenvat Credit correctly to the respondent. With these observations, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. Appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Cross objection filed by the Respondent is also disposed of.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)

Bhanu

2

C/51973-51975/2014-CU(SM)