M/S. Tata Steel Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. IND/CEX/000/APP/149/2012 dated 30.5.2012 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Indore]

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. Tata Steel Ltd. Appellants

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

& ST, Indore

Appearance:

Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri A.K. Dhawan, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 01.1.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. A/ 50032 /2015-Ex(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein Cenvat Credit on items like HR coils, MS channels and MS bright bars is denied to the appellant on the premise that same does not qualify as capital goods as per Rule 2A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

2. Heard the parties.

3. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that these items were used for fabrication of capital goods. Therefore, these items qualify as components and part of the capital goods. In these circumstances, it is prayed that they are entitled to take Cenvat Credit on the above items. He also submits that both the lower authorities have gone beyond the allegations leveled in the show cause notice. He further submits that as it has not been verified by the authorities below that these items were used as capital goods or not. Therefore conclusion cannot be drawn that these items in question are for fabrication which are embedded to earth. He also submits that appellant is having good case on limitation also.

4. On the other hand, learned AR relies on the findings of the adjudicating authority to say that these items were used by the appellant for supporting structures which are embedded to earth. Therefore, they are not entitled to take Cenvat Credit as per the decision of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. [2010 (253) ELT 440]

5. I have gone through the records placed before me. In fact the defense taken by the appellant is that both items were used by them in fabrication of capital goods but no verification has been done by the authorities below to find out as to whether the fabrication of the capital goods has been done or not, therefore, Cenvat Credit cannot be denied in the absence of any verification. Admittedly, there was no verification about the usage of these items. Therefore, matter needs to be examined at the end of adjudicating authority. In these circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to verify the usage of the items in question and thereafter decide the admissibility of Cenvat Credit thereon. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. The adjudicating authority shall decide the issue in accordance with the law.

(dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)

ss

??

??

??

??

2