M/S Hindustan Copper Ltd vs C.C.E. & S.T. Jaipur-I

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 161(RDN) CE/JPR-I/2012 dated: 19.10.2012 passed by CCE Jaipur-I]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

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?

M/s Hindustan Copper Ltd. ...Appellant

Vs.

C.C.E. & S.T.  Jaipur-I Respondent

Appearance:

Ms. Asmita Nayak, Advocate for the Appellants

Mr. G R Singh, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing.20.05.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52998 /2015

Per S. K. Mohanty (for the Bench):

The issue involved in the present appeal is regarding eligibility of cenvat credit on MS Plates, MS Joists, MS Channels etc. The reason for denial of cenvat credit by the Authorities below are that the said goods are not confirming to the definition of Input as defined in Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

2. The submissions of the Ld. Advocate for the appellant are that the disputed goods are used in the factory premises of the appellant for repair and maintenance of the capital goods such as Ball Mill and Floatation Cell Plant installed in the factory. Ld. Advocate further submits that the issue regarding eligibility of cenvat credit on the disputed items is no more open for any debate in view of the judgments delivered by the High Court in the cases of Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. vs CCE Raipur reported in 2010 (256) ELT 690 (Chattisgarh), CCE Bangalore- I vs Alfred Herbert (India) Ltd. reported in 2010 (257) ELT 29 (Kar.) and UOI vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd. reported in 2007 (214) ELT 510 (Raj.). Ld. Advocate further submits that the judgment in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (supra) delivered by the Honble Rajasthan High Court has been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court reported in 2007 (214) ELT A115 (S.C.).

3. Per Contra, the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue submitted that by nature and use of the disputed goods in the factory, the same shall not be considered as Input and to justify such stand, he has cited the decisions of Honble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rayalseema Hi-Strength hypo Ltd. vs CC&CE Tirupati reported in 2012 (278) ELT 167 (A.P.) and decision in the case of Cosmos Ispat (P) Ltd. vs CCE Raipur reported in 2012 (284) LT 721 (Tri. Del).

4. Heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the records.

5. The issue decided in the judgments cited by the ld. Advocate is that when the goods are necessary for running of plant and for up-keeping of the machinery directly involved in the manufacturing of the excisable goods, the same should be considered as Input. I find that the judgment of Honble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (supra) is to be followed in the instant case, since this Tribunal falls under the jurisdiction of the said court. Thus, the judgment cited by the Ld. DR cannot be relied on in view of the judgment of Honble Rajasthan High Court in favour of the appellant.

6. In view of the above, the appellant is eligible for cenvat credit on the above said goods and accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member(Judicial)

Neha

Page | 3