M/S.Partha Ispat (India) Pvt.Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.Tax, ...

Appeal No.EA-201/12 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.06/RAN/2012 dated 24.01.2012 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) of Central Excise & S.Tax, Ranchi.)

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE

HONBLE DR. D.M.MISRA, 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 Authorative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Authorities?

M/s.Partha Ispat (India) Pvt.Ltd.

Applicant (s)/Appellant (s) Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise & S.Tax, Ranchi Respondent (s)

Appearance:

Shri R.R.Sinha, Advocate for the Appellant (s)

Shri A.K.Biswas, Supdt.(AR) for the Revenue (s)

CORAM:

Honble Dr. D.M.Misra, Member(Judicial)

Date of Hearing/Decision :- 11.09.2015 Date of Pronouncement :- 11.09.2015

ORDER NO.FO/A/75499/2015

Per Dr. D.M.Misra.

This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No.06/RAN/2012 dated 24.01.2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals) & S.Tax, Ranchi.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Pig Iron and S.G.Inserts. During the period from June 2008 to July, 2008, the Appellant had availed cenvat credit on the rejected PSC Sleepers claiming the same as input meant to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of their finished goods. The said rejected PSC Sleepers are broken and after removing the concrete and cement portion from the said PSC Sleepers, the iron wire and inserts are extracted and used in or in relation to the Pig Iron and S.G. Inserts. The demand has been confirmed and penalty imposed on the ground that since the rejected PSC Sleepers as a whole were not used in or in relation to the manufacture of their finished products, accordingly, cenvat credit is not admissible to them. Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the ld.Commissioner(Appeals), who dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the adjudication order. Hence, the present Appeal.

3. The ld.Advocate, appearing for the Appellant, submits that the usable portion of PSC Sleepers i.e. wire and inserts are used in the manufacture of Pig Iron and S.G.Inserts, therefore, the condition of use of input in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods as laid down under the definition of input at Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, is satisfied. Therefore, denial of cenvat credit on the PSC Sleepers is incorrect.

4. The ld.A.R. appearingfor the Revenue, has reiterated the findinsg of the ld.Commissioner(Appeals).

5. Heard both sides and perused the records. On going through the impugned order, I find that the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) while upholding the Order-in-Original, has held that a little portion of the said PSC sleepers used in the manufacture of Pig Iron and S.G. Inserts, cannot make it eligible to call as input and eligible to Cenvat credit. I do not find any merit in the said observation inasmuch as the definition of input and other conditions laid down under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, makes it abundantly clear that to be eligible to cenvat credit, the input must be used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods. Once the inputs has been used in or in relation to the manufacture of finished products, the Appelalnts are eligible to the credit. There is no allegation in the show cause notice nor any finding in the impugned order that the wires and inserts retrieved/extracted out of breaking of the rejected PSC Sleepers, had not been used in or in relation to the manufacture of Pig Iron and S.G. Inserts and the same were cleared without payment of duty. In these premises, therefore, I do not find any merit in the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the Appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.)

SD/

(D.M.MISRA) MEMBER(JUDICIAL) sm

3 Appeal No.EA-201/12