M/S. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd vs C.C.E. Raipur

Excise Appeal No. E/2059/2006-[SM] [Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 51/RPR-I/2006 dated: 20.03.2006 passed by CCE (Appeals-I) Raipur]

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. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. ...Appellant

Vs. C.C.E. Raipur Respondent

Appearance:

Ms. Shreya, (Advocate) for the Appellant Mr. R K Gupta, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

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

Date of Hearing/ Decision. 20.08.2015

Final Order No. 54250 /2015_ Per S K Mohanty:

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.03.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Raipur, upholding denial of cenvat credit on Jumbo Electric High Fixed Front Suspension Vehicle in the adjudication order.

2. The Ld. Advocate Ms. Shreya appearing for the appellant submits that the Jumbo Electric High Fixed Front Suspension Vehicle is a material handling equipment used within the factory premises for transportation of Nitrogen Cylinders between the different plant facilities. The Ld. Advocate further submits that in terms of the definition of input contained in Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the disputed goods should be considered as input for the purpose of the taking cenvat credit. To Substantiate that the disputed goods is eligible for cenvat benefit, the Ld. Advocate relied on the final order dated 22.07.2015 passed by this Tribunal, wherein cenvat credit on JO Trucks has been allowed by this Tribunal.

3. Per contra, Sh. R K Gupta the Ld. DR appearing for the respondent reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order.

4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

5. It is an admitted fact on record that the disputed goods is a material handling equipment used within the factory of the appellant for transportation of Nitrogen Cylinders between the different plant facilities. Since the definition of input contained in Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is very broad and takes within its ambit goods used in or in relation to manufacture of the final products, I am of the considered view that the disputed goods should qualify for cenvat credit as input. In this context, I rely on the decision dated 20.07.2015 of this Tribunal, in the case of the appellant itself, wherein cenvat credit taken on JO Trucks has been allowed as input.

6. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), and as such, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S. K. Mohanty) Member(Judicial)

Neha

[3] E/2059/2006