M/S Nirwani Sons vs C.C.E. Delhi-Iv

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 325/CE/APPL/DLH-IV/2014 dated 11.11.2014 passed by CCE (Appeals) Faridabad]

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 Nirwani Sons ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

C.C.E. Delhi-IV Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Ishan Bhatia (Advocate) for the Appellant

Mr. V. Batra (DR) for the Respondent

CORAM:

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

Date of Hearing/ Decision. 27.10.2015

Final Order No. 53960/2015_

Per S K Mohanty:

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of bright bars falling under chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant avails cenvat benefit in respect of inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of the final products. Taking of canvat credit on the inputs were denied by the Central Excise Department on the ground that process of drawing of bright bars from wire rods/ rounds would not amount to manufacture, and as such, the goods manufactured were not excisable; thus, no cenvat credit on the wire rods/ rounds used for drawing or wire was admissible to the appellant. The Cenvat demand confirmed in the Adjudication Order was upheld in the impugned order dated 11.11.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad. Hence, this present appeal before the Tribunal.

2. Sh. Ishan Bhatia the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant had paid appropriate Central Excise duty on the finished product, namely, steel bright bars produced by using steel wire rods/ bars/ rounds, and that in the process the appellant had paid duty more than cenvat credit taken on inputs used in the manufacture of steel bright pars. He further submitted that since the Department has collected Central Excise duty on removal of steel bright bars from the factory, taking of cenvat credit on the inputs and utilization of the same towards clearance of the final product cannot be denied to the appellant. Thus, the Ld. Counsel submits that the issue is Revenue neutral for which the confirmation of cenvat demand and imposition of penalty are not legal and proper. The Consultant also submitted that the issue arising out of the present dispute is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the cases of:

* R B Steel Services and Ors. Vs CCE Rohtak, Final Order No. A/54157-54159/2014 dated 30.09.2014.

* BESOTO Starting System (P) Ltd. vs CCE Delhi-IV Faridabad Final Order No. 53212/2015 dated 15.10.2015

* Cenlub Systems vs CCE Delhi IV Final Order No. 53213/2015 dated 15.10.2015

* Hemsons Engineers vs CCE Delhi  IV Final Order No. 53215/2015 dated 15.10.2015

* Shiv Auto Products vs CCE Delhi-IV Final Order No. 53214/2015 dated 15.10.2015

3. On the other hand, the Ld. AR appearing for the Respondent reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order.

4. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and examined the records.

5. I find that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the decisions of this Tribunal in favour of the appellant holding that when the input is received and used in or in relation to manufacture of final product and payment of duty is evidenced by the invoices, credit cannot be denied. In view of above settled position of law, I do not find any merits in the impugned order, and thus, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.

(Operative portion of the order pronounced in open court)

(S. K. Mohanty)

Member(Judicial)

Neha

3 | Page

E-50447/2015-Ex[SM]