M/S Diamond Cables Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ...

Appeal No.E/1508/2010 [Arising out of OIA No.Commr.(A)/182/VDR-II/2010, dt.15.07.2010, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Vadodara]

M/s Diamond Cables Ltd. Appellant

Vs

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Vadodara Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri Willingdon Christian, Advocate For Respondent: Shri S.K. Shukla, A.R.

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No 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 Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:25.02.2015

Order No. A/10181 / 2015, dt.25.02.2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the CENVAT Credit was denied on M.S. Angles, Channels, Plates etc. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that these items are used for erection and commissioning of various Plants & Machineries for ultimate aim of production of final product on which the Excise duty was paid by them. In this context, he drew the attention of the Bench to a letter dt.30.06.2010 addressed to the Commissioner (Appeals) Vadodara. On the other hand, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellants in their grounds of appeal stated that these items were also used for the construction of factory shed, building, or for laying foundation or for making any structure for support of any capital goods.

2. Learned Advocate submits that the appellant inadvertently mentioned this fact in grounds of appeal. Learned Advocate also contested the demand on limitation.

3. I find that there is a contradiction in the submission of the appellant in so far as that the appellant by letter dt.30.06.2010 stated before the Commissioner (Appeals) that these items were used in various Plants & Machineries and also categorically mentioned the details of the Plants & Machineries in their letter. In my considered view, the appellant should be given an opportunity to place the details of use of these items with supporting documents before the Adjudicating authority.

4. In view of that, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating authority to decide afresh, after examining the use of these items with supporting evidence. The Adjudicating authority is directed to decide this case on merit as well as on limitation, after considering the submissions of the appellant in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.K. Das) Member (Judicial)

cbb

3