M/S. Jaypee Rewa Plant vs Cce & St, Bhopal

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. BPL-EXCUS-000-APP-308-13-14 Dated 19.03.2014 Passed By The Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhopal]

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. Jaypee Rewa Plant Appellant

Vs.

CCE & ST, Bhopal  Respondent

Present for the Appellant : Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate

Present for the Respondent: Mr. M.R. Sharma, DR

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

Date of Hearing/Decision: 22.06.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 53303/2015

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

Denial of cenvat credit on iron and steel items is the subject matter of present dispute.

2. The submissions of the appellant are that since the disputed goods have been used for fabrication of the capital goods installed in the factory for manufacture of the finished products, Cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on the disputed goods should be eligible for cenvat credit. The ld. Advocate submits that during the course of adjudication, the appellant had produced the statement showing the details of input materials received and used for manufacture of the capital goods. She further submits that the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent upon verification of actual use of the disputed inputs for the intended purpose, had submitted the report dated 09.08.2010 to the adjudicating authority, confirming consumption of the steel items for use in the intended purpose.

3. I find from the available records that both the authorities below have not discussed regarding the certificate submitted by the appellant as well as Range Officer in their respective orders. Unless the use of the disputed goods (as asserted) is acknowledged by the original authority, it is not possible for the Tribunal to ascertain the eligibility of the disputed goods to cenvat benefit, based on the statement made by the appellant.

4. Accordingly, with the consent of both sides, the matter is remanded back to the Original Authority for a fresh fact finding on the basis of the statements submitted by the appellant and also the report furnished by the Range Superintendent. Before adjudicating the matter afresh, the Original Authority should submit the report dated 09.08.2010 to the appellant and thereafter should grant the opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant. The appellant is at liberty to produce any additional documents/case laws during the course of denovo adjudication. The impugned order is set aside by way of remand.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

(S.K. MOHANTY)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Anita

??

??

??

??

0 2