Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Andhra Ferro Alloys Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 5/2009 (V-I) CE and Order-in-Appeal No 07/2007 (V-I) CE both dated 21/01/2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, VISAKHAPATNAM-I.]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should 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 Departmental authorities? Yes

Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Visakhapatnam-I CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING PORT AREA VISAKHAPATNAM  530 035. ANDHRA PRADESH Appellant(s)

Versus

M/s. Andhra Ferro Alloys Ltd Srinivasa Nagar, Chintalapalem, (P.O), Pendurthi So, Kothavalsa (M) VIZIANAGARAM  531 173. AP Respondent(s)

M/s. ANDHRA FERRO ALLOYS LTD., GARBHAM (VILLAGE), MERAKAKUDIDAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Mohd. Yusuf, Addl. Commissioner (AR) For the Appellant

None For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 05/02/2015

Date of Decision: 05/02/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20237-20238 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

After rejecting the request for adjournment, I proceed to decide both the appeals of the Revenue by passing a common order, as the issue involved is identical.

2. After hearing the learned AR and after going the impugned orders, I find that the issue relates to availability of CENVAT credit of duty-paid on various items like plates, beams, angles, channels, joists, HR coils, etc. The original adjudicating authority disallowed the credit on the ground that the same cannot be considered to be capital goods for the purpose of allowing the CENVAT credit. The Commissioner (A) has examined the issue and held that inasmuch as the same are used for manufacture of the capital goods or for maintenance of already installed capital goods, they have to be held as cenvatable capital goods.

3. Revenues grievance is that the said items are also capable of being used as supporting structural, in which case the benefit of the credit would not be available to the respondent. However, I find that as against the clear finding of the appellate authority, Revenue in their memo of appeal have not adverted to any evidence to show that the said items have actually been used as supporting structural. To contend that the same are also capable of being used as supporting structural is not sufficient. Even the Larger Benchs decision in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur reported as 2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri.-LB). allows the CENVAT credit of duty-paid on various iron and steel items used for fabrication of capital goods. I also take note of the latest decision of the Honble Madras High Court in the case of Indian Cement Ltd. as reported 2014-TIOL-1185-HC-MAD-CX laying down that said items even if used as supporting structural, are eligible cenvatable items.

4. In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned orders of the Commissioner (A). Accordingly, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.

(Order pronounced in open court)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 3