Kareli Sugar Mills Pvt.Ltd vs Cce, Bhopal
- CitationAppeal No.E/53622-53623/14
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The adjudicating authority, in deciding whether an assessee is entitled to cenvat credit on items, must address the assessee's specific plea that the items were used in the fabrication of capital goods or in the maintenance of plant and machinery; an order that fails to discuss such a plea is liable to be set aside, and the matter remanded for a speaking order after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of the OIA No.BPL-EXCUS-000-aPP-254-13-14 dt.3.2.14 passed by the CCE (Appeals),Bhopal)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 04.3.2015
For Approval &signature:
HonbleMr.Ashok Jindal, 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? No 2. Whether it would 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 Department Authorities? Yes
Kareli Sugar Mills Pvt.Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Bhopal Respondent
Appearance
Shri S.S.Dabas, Advocate for the appellant
Shri A.K.Dhawan, AR for the respondent
CORAM: HonbleMr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
FINAL ORDER NO.50569-50570 /2015
Per Ashok Jindal :
The appellants are in appeal against the impugned order alongwith stay applications.
2. After hearing for some time, I find that the appeals themselves can be decided at this stage. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, the appeals are taken together for disposal with consent of both sides.
3. The facts of the case are that the appellants availed cenvat credit on certain iron and steel items. The Revenue is of the view that these items are neither inputs nor capital goods. Therefore, they are not entitled to take cenvat credit. In reply to the show cause notice, the appellants submitted that these items were used for fabrication of capital goods and some iron and steels items were used for maintenance of plant and machineries, therefore, they are entitled to take cenvat credit on these items. The said plea of the appellant was not discussed in the order by the lower authorities.
4. In the circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to pass a speaking order regarding usage of these items in accordance with law after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants to present their case.
5. The appeals as well as stay applications are disposed of in the above terms.
(pronounced in the open court)
(Ashok Jindal)
Member (Judicial)
mk
1
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