Hinduja Foundries Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal20 March 2015

CitationAppeal No.E/S/41657/2014 & E/41371/2014

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The rule of law the Tribunal's decision rests on is that where the issue of denial of Cenvat credit on goods such as MS channels, angles and plates arises after the amendment of the definition in Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the adjudicating authority has not considered the binding and persuasive judicial pronouncements on that issue, the matter is to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh in light of those decisions, after affording the appellant an opportunity of being heard.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALSOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAIAppeal No.E/S/41657/2014 & E/41371/2014

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 47/2014 (M-I) dt. 15.4.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]

Hinduja Foundries Ltd. Appellant

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-I Respondent

Appearance:

Shri M. Kannan, Advocate For the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) For the Respondent

CORAM:

Honble Shri R. Periasami, Technical Member

Date of hearing/decision :20.3.2015

FINAL ORDER No.40332/2015

1. The appellant filed stay application against Commissioner (Appeals) order-in-appeal dt. 15.4.2004.

2. Against the confirmed demand of Rs.42,59,842/- appellants have already complied with predeposit order before Commissioner (Appeals) by payment of Rs.25 lakhs as predeposit which is reflected in para-4 of the OIA. Looking into the fact that appellants have already pre-deposited Rs.25 lakhs against the demand and the lower authority has also considered the issue of denial of cenvat credit on MS channels, MS rods, plates, angles, bars etc., after dispensing with requirement of predeposit, I proceed to take up the main appeal itself with the consent of both sides.

3. The issue relates to denial of credit on MS Channels, MS Angles, MS Plates etc. after the amendment of definition of Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On perusal of records, I find that both sides have not considered various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Court pronouncements on the issue of credit availed on MS Angles, channels etc. in the following cases :-

(a) Commissioner Vs. Jawahar Mills Ltd. -

2001 (132) ELT 3 (SC)

(b) CCE, Belgaum Vs. Doodhaganga Krishna Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit - 2013 (297) ELT 361 (Kar.)

2012 (280) ELT 176 (Kar.)

(d) CCE, Mysore Vs. ICL Sugars Ltd. 2011 (271) ELT 360 (Kar.)

(e) CCE, Tiruchirappalli Vs. India Cements Ltd.-

2014 (305) ELT 558 (Mad.)

Therefore, taking into consideration the judicial pronouncements in all fairness, the appeal should be remanded to the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, the appeal is remanded to the adjudicating authority who shall hear the case afresh after examining the ratio laid down in the above judgments and pass appropriate order. It is needless to say that the adjudicating authority shall afford an opportunity to appellant of being heard before deciding the case. Appeal is allowed by remand. The stay application is disposed of.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(R. PERIASAMI) TECHNICAL MEMBER

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free