M/S.Hira Ferro Alloys Limited vs Cce & St, Raipur

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.108/RPR-I/2014 dated 19.05.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Deptt., Raipur]

For approval and signature:

HONBLE 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.Hira Ferro Alloys Limited Appellant

Vs.

CCE & ST, Raipur  Respondent

Present for the Appellant : Shri Krishnamohan K. Menon,

Advocate

Present for the Respondent: Shri Devender Singh, JCDR

Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 06.07.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 54141/2015

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Ferro Alloys falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant avails cenvat credit of various duties and taxes paid on inputs and capital goods used in or in relation to manufacture of the said final product. In the present case, cenvat credit taken on the FIBC Bags / Jumbo bags, Rails & rail cuttings and G.I. Wire netting were denied by the Central Excise Department on the ground that the said goods are not confirming to the definition of input.

2. The ld. Advocate Shri. Shri Krishnamohan K. Menon, appearing for the appellant submits that FIBC Bags / Jumbo bags are used for packing and transportation of the final products manufactured by the appellant. With regard to Rails & rail cuttings, the submissions of ld. Advocate are that the same are used as parts and component of digging machines, which are further used for crushing of the manganese ore. With regard to cenvat credit taken on G.I. Wires, the submission of ld. Advocate is that the said input goods are used in screening of the manganese ore before feeding into the furnace. Thus, according to the ld. Advocate, by nature of use of the disputed goods and their participation in the manufacture of final product, the disputed goods should qualify AS input for the purpose of taking cenvat credit. He also produces the photographs indicating the nature of use of the disputed goods in the factory.

3. Per contra, the ld. JCDR Shri Devender Singh appearing for the respondent submits that the photographs and other documents submitted before this Tribunal were not available for verification by the authorities below. Thus, he submits that the matter should be remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification of the documents.

4. Heard both sides and perused the records.

5. Considering the facts that the photographs and other documents produced by the appellant at this juncture were not available either before the original or first appellant authority, I am of the view that the matter should go back to the original authority for a fresh fact finding on the basis of the available records. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the original authority with the direction to adjudicate the matter afresh on the basis of the documents to be submitted by the appellants. Needless to say, opportunity of personal hearing should be granted before passing the de-novo adjudication order. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

(S.K. MOHANTY)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Anitha

??

??

??

??

0 2