C.C.E.&S.T., Raipur vs M/S. Gagan Resources Pvt. Ltd

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

Appeal No.E/54470/2014-EX[SM]

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.116/RPR-I/2014, dated 20.05.2014 passed by the C.C.E.(Appeals), Raipur-I]

C.C.E.&S.T., Raipur Appellant

Vs.

M/s. Gagan Resources Pvt. Ltd. Respondent

Appearance

Mr. GR Singh, DR - For Appellant

Mr. Bipin Garg, Advocate - For Respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Final Order No.54196/2015, dated 15.09.2015

Per Mr. S.K. Mohanty :

Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 20.05.2014 passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), wherein it has been held that the respondent herein is entitled for CENVAT credit taken on the inputs, namely, plates, MS angles, MS channels, MS plates, HR sheet, MS joist and welding rods, etc.

2. The grievance of Revenue is that ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has simply accepted the certificate produced by the respondent without verifying the fact of manufacture of capital goods, duly supported by the records/accounts. Thus, according to Revenue, since the appellate authority without examining the records of the respondent, has extended the CENVAT benefit is not legal and proper.

3. Heard both sides and examined the records.

4. I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has allowed the CENVAT credit holding that the disputed goods have been used for manufacture of rotary kiln and rotary cooler, pollution control equipments (ES), conveyer, after burn chambers, etc., which are capital goods mentioned under chapter heading 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. I find from the impugned order that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has arrived at such conclusion based on the documents/records/photographs and the Chartered Engineers certificate submitted by the respondent.

4. In view of the fact that upon analysis of the factual matrix, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has extended the CENVAT benefit to the appellant on the disputed goods, the impugned order does not warrant the appellate intervention. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the appeal filed by Revenue. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

[Operated portion pronounced in the open court]

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member (Judicial)

SSK

-3-