Cce, Ghaziabad vs M/S.Rathi Super Steel Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.312-CE/GZB/2008 dated 03/01/2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ghaziabad].]

For approval and signature:

HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, 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?

__________________________________________________

CCE, Ghaziabad Appellant

Vs.

M/s.Rathi Super Steel Ltd.  Respondent

Present for the Appellant : Shri G.R. Singh, DR

Present for the Respondent: Shri Rajesh Chhibber, Advocate

Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 29.05.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52148/2015

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

This appeal has been field by the Revenue  appellant against the impugned order dated 03.01.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Ghaziabad.

2. The brief facts of the case, leading to the present appeal, are as follows:-

2.1 The respondent is a manufacturer of steel items falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent avails cenvat credit of central excise duty paid on the inputs and capital goods received in the factory for use in or in relation to manufacture of the said final product. The Central Excise Officials visited the factory of the respondent on 25.01.2007 and during the course of verification of records, they found that cenvat credit of Rs.17,63,564/- in respect of 19 Nos. of disputed invoices have been taken by the respondent without receiving the capital goods in the factory. The said credit taken was disallowed by the Adjudicating Authority, against which the respondent had preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal of the respondent was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) with all consequential relief. While allowing the appeal in favour of the respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) at page 4 in the impugned order has observed that the goods in question were actually received in the factory of the appellant therein and used in the manufacture of the final product. It has further been observed that the documents evidencing receipt of goods in the factory were also produced by the appellant before the adjudicating authority.

3. In view of the fact that upon proper verification of the records of respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) has arrived at the conclusion that the capital goods covered under the disputed invoices have actually been received in the factory of the respondent for use in the intended purpose, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order.

3. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and as such appeal filed by the Revenue  appellant is dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

(S.K. MOHANTY)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Anita

??

??

??

??

0 2