Cce-Meerut-I vs M/S. M.Q. Steels (P) Ltd

[Arising out of order-in-Original No. 49/ADC/MRT-I/2009 dated 12.11.2009 passed by CCE-Meerut-I]

For Approval and Signature:

Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, 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?

2. Whether it would 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 Department Authorities?

CCE-Meerut-I Appellant

Vs.

M/s. M.Q. Steels (P) Ltd. Respondent

Appearance: Shri R.K. Mishra, DR for the appellant

Ms. Rinki Arora, Advocate for the respondent

Coram: Honble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Final Order NO. 54091/2015

Per: S.K. Mohanty

Revenue has assailed the impugned order mainly on the ground that M S Bars, being in the nature of final products manufactured on rollng of MS ingots, cannot be treated as input for availment of cenvat benefit.

2. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

5. I find that the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 12/11/2009 has recorded a clear and specific finding that the M.S. Bars (short length) has been used by the respondent by melting in the Induction Furnace for manufacture of M.S. Ingots, and thus, the same should qualify as input in terms of Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. I also find that the statement recorded by M/s. Bharat Steel Re-rolling Mills was recorded by the department on 13/2/2010, which was after completion of the adjudication proceedings. Thus, the said statement cannot be relied on at this juncture, since the same has not been examined at the time of issuance of the show cause notice or passing of the adjudication order. The other issue raised by Revenue in this appeal is that since, the price of MS bars is more than MS ingots, and thus, the same cannot be considered as input, I am of the view that this ground of Revenue is not at all relevant for consideration of the definition of input, in as much as, goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product shall qualify as input for taking cenvat credit on the duties paid thereon. In the present case, since the Adjudicating Authority upon proper analysis/verification of the manufacturing activities involved, has arrived at the conclusion that M.S. bars are input for the respondent, such views cannot be negated by Revenue, without producing any plausible evidence.

7. In view of the forgoing, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member (Judicial)

Ritu

3