M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise &

(Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No.  SRP/182/VAPI/2012-13 Dated 28.12.2012 Passed by Commissioner Of Central Excise -VAPI)

M/s Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd : Appellant (s) VERSUS

Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax-Vapi : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Appellant (s) : Shri. D. Arvind , Chartered Accountant For Respondent (s): Shri. T.K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)

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 should be released under Rule 27 of 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

CORAM :

Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 27.07.2015

ORDER No. A/11157/2015 Dated 27.07.2015

Per : Mr. H.K. Thakur;

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against OIA No. SRP/182/VAPI/2012-13 dated 28.12.2012 passed by case (A) vapi as first appellate authority.

2. Shri. D. Arvind (CA) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the issue involved in the present proceedings is regarding admissibility of Cenvat Credit on items mainly used in the manufacture of Storage tanks. It was his case that items are Angles, Channels, Beams, M.S. plates, CR Coils, HR coils etc and are used predominantly in the manufacture of tanks for storage of inputs, CA made the bench go through Para  2 of the show cause notice dated 27.12.2010 and also appellants reply to the show cause notice and argued that both the Lower authorities have wrongly applied the ratio of CESTAT Larger Bench decision in the case of Vandna Global Ltd [2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri.-LB)] to hold that these items are used only used in making of support structures of the Capital goods. It was also his case the demand is time barred.

3. Shri T.K. Sikdar (AR) on the other hand argued that nowhere in the proceedings before the Lower authorities appellant has argued, with the help of any Chartered Engineers Certificate, as to how much of these items are used in Storage tanks and how much are used in support structures. That in the absence of any such data/certificate Lower authorities have correctly decided the case against the appellant.

4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in this appeal is whether Cenvat Credit will be admissible to the appellant on items like Angles, Channels, Beams, M.S. Plates, CR coils, HR coils etc. It is the case of the appellant that these items are mainly used for making Storage tanks in the factory meant for storage of materials. Appellant has not made out its case on the basis of any documentary evidence like a Chartered Engineers Certificate. If these items are used for making Storage tanks in the factory Cenvat Credit will be admissible as Capital goods under Rule  2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. In the absence of any Chartered Engineers Certificate produced by the appellant this case is required to be remanded back to the Adjudicating authority to decide it afresh in denavo proceedings. Appellant shall produce all the relevant document in support of his claim before the Adjudicating authority that these items are used in making of Storage tanks. Needless to say the Adjudicating authority will grant the appellant an opportunity to explain their case before deciding the issue Adjudicating authority will also decide the issue of time barred in the remand proceedings.

5. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating authority.

(Operative part of the order pronounced in the Court)

(H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical) VM 1