Commr. Of Central Excise, Customs & vs M/S. Prinik Steels (P) Ltd

(Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. 14-15/CE/B-I/2012 dated-05/09/2012 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, BBSR)

For approval and signature of:

DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE 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?

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 ?

Commr. of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax-BBSR-I

APPELLANT(S) VERSUS

M/s. Prinik Steels (P) Ltd.

RESPONDENT(S)

APPEARANCE

Sri M. Chattopadhyay, A.C. (A.R.) FOR APPELLANT(S) Sri S. B. Sharma, Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM: DR.D.M. MISRA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER

DATE OF HEARING & DECISION : 17/07/2015

ORDER NO : FO/A/75426/15

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 14-15/CE/B-I/2012 dated-05/09/2012.

2. At the outset, the Ld. A.R. for the Revenue submitted that the assesse/respondent has wrongly availed CENVAT Credit on various items i.e. Angles, Channels, Beams etc. used in fabrication of structural items, hence not admissible to CENVAT Credit as capital goods. He submits that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for verification of the facts to ascertain whether these items were used in structures or otherwise. He submits that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is not empowered to remand the appeal in view of the amended section of 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

3. Ld. Advocate Shri Sharma for the Respondent submits that in view of the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, Delhi-I Vs. Vikram Dhawan reported in 2012 (284) E.L.T. 554 (Tri.-Del), the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has power to remand the case for verification of facts. He has no objection in remanding the case to the adjudicating authority.

4. Heard both sides and perused the records. I find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after analyzing the facts brought on record , opined that in the interest of justice, the actual use of the disputed items whether in structurals or otherwise need to be verified by the lower authority before passing any order in this regard. I do agree with the said proposition of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and with the consent of both sides, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for necessary verification as to whether the disputed items have been used as structural steels or otherwise. Appeal disposed off as above.

( Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

Sd/- 10/08/2015` (D.M.MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) k.b/-

Excise Appeal No.684/2012

3