M/S. Mahendra Strips Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 99/RPR-I/2012 dated 5/07/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Chhatisgarh]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, 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. Mahendra Strips Pvt. Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

& ST, Raipur

Appearance:

Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri G R Singh, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 01.07.2015

ORDER NO. FO/ 52085/2015-Ex(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order denying cenvat credit on the items angles, channels, beams and plates etc. on which the appellant has availed Cenvat credit during the period 2006-2007 on the premise that these items are neither inputs nor capital goods. Therefore, appellant is not entitled to take cenvat credit .

2. Heard the parties.

3. In this case, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that these items have been used by them for fabrication of capital goods namely, rolls, crane gantry, crane operating system, repeater, pusher, w channel and guide line. It is also contended that Show cause notice has been issued on 7.9.2010 by extending longer period of limitation which is not sustainable in the light of decision of this Tribunal in Shiv Shakti Steel Pvt. Ltd. [2014 TIOL-3041-CESTAT-DEL] and Jindal Drugs Ltd. [2015-TIOL-900-CESTAT-DEL]

4. I have gone through the submissions made by learned Counsel and find that during the impugned period there were decisions of this Tribunal in favour of the appellant itself. Therefore the Show cause notice issued by invoking extended period of limitation is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In these terms, I hold that show cause notice issued to the appellant is barred by limitation. Consequently, demands are not sustainable.

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)

ss

2