M/S. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal9 September 2015

CitationExcise Appeal No. 3219 of 2006

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Railway track which is exclusively used by the assessee for transporting goods inside its factory, and which thereby facilitates the manufacture of the final product, is entitled to Cenvat credit; following the test laid down in Jayaswal Neco Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur, that the use of the item must be related to the actual production of goods such that commercial production would be inexpedient without it.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHIPRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IIExcise Appeal No. 3219 of 2006

[Arising out of Order-In-Original No. 124/RPR-I/2006 dated 22.6.2006 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals I), Raipur(CG) ]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Mr. B Ravichandran , Member (Technical)

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. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Raipur

Appearance:

Shri L P Asthana, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri R K Grover, DR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Mr. B Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing /decision: 09.09.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. A/ 52840 /2015-EX(DB)

Per Ashok Jindal :

Cenvat credit on railway track has been denied to the appellants on the premise that railway track is neither input nor capital goods as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, therefore, appellant are not entitled for Cenvat credit on the same.

2. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.

3. As railway track has been exclusively used by the appellant for manufacturing of their commercial product, therefore, in the light of decision of Jayaswal Neco Ltd. vs CCE, Raipur [2015-TIOL-70-SC-CX] wherein the Honble Apex Court has observed as under:

14. Applying the aforesaid test to the facts of this case, it is apparent that the use of railway tracks is related to the actual production of goods and without the use of the said railway track, commercial production would be inexpedient.

4. Therefore, we hold that railway track which is exclusively used by the appellant for transportation of the goods inside their factory which resulted in manufacturing of final product, therefore, we hold that appellant is entitled to take cenvat credit on railway track.

5. With these observations, impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.

( Dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

( B Ravichandran )

Member(Technical)

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free