Cce & Cst, Indore vs M/S. Century Denim

(Arising out of OIA No.IND/CEX/000/APP/229/2014 dt.15.9.14 passed by CCE(A), Indore)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 10.09.2015

For approval & Signature:

Honble Smt.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

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? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

CCE & CST, Indore Appellant

Vs.

M/s. Century Denim Respondent

Appearance:

Present for the Appellant: Shri B.B.Sharma, DR

Present for the Respondent: Shri Vipin Upadhyay, Advocate

Coram: Honble Smt.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

Final Order No.52845/2015

Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S.

Revenue is in appeal challenging the impugned order which allowed credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods.

2. The genesis of litigation is when the department issued separate show cause notices to M/s.Century Denim and its captive power plant, M/s.Century Denim Power Plant alleging that these are separate entities and credit on inputs received by M/s.Century Denim and used in their captive power plant is not admissible. According to the department, the respondent had declared their captive power plant as separate undertaking for the purpose of availing benefit under section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, that the inputs and capital goods on which credit was availed are not used within the factory of production but in the captive power plant which is a separate industrial undertaking. That on the inputs and capital goods received in the factory of M/s.Denim Century which was removed to M/s. Century Denim Power Plant, the credit is not admissible. The show cause notice issued for the period October, 2010 to March, 2012 culminated in the Order-in-Original which confirmed disallowance of credit and also imposed penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and set aside the order disallowing the credit. Aggrieved, the Revenue is before the Tribunal.

3. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in the respondents own case for a different period on the same issue, the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in Century Denim vs. CCE, Indore-2014 (301) ELT 358 (Tri.-Del.) has decided in favour of the respondent/assessee holding that the credit is admissible. As the issue is covered by the assessees own case, applying the ratio therein, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

4. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

(pronounced in the open court)

(Sulekha Beevi C.S.)

Member (Judicial)

mk

3