Rspl Ltd vs Cce, Bhopal

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.BPL/EXCUS/000/APP/46/14-15 dated 22.05.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Bhopal].

For approval and signature:

HONBLE 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?

RSPL Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Bhopal  Respondent

Present for the Appellant : Shri B.D. Trivedi, Consultant

Present for the Respondent: Shri M.S. Negi, DR

Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 30.06.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 54031/2015

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 22.05.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Bhopal wherein cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on S.S. Dozer, Copper Bus Bar and M.S. Setter taken by the appellant under the head capital goods has been denied, holding that no documentary evidences were produced either before the adjudicating authority or before the Commissioner (Appeals) to demonstrate that the impugned goods are in-fact capital goods and are eligible for cenvat benefit.

2. The ld. Consultant Shri. B.D. Trivedi appearing for the appellant submits that S.S. Dozer and M.S. Settler are used by the appellant as storage tanks for storing the semi finished goods namely, Linear Alkyl Benzene and Sulphuric Acid within the factory. With regard to Copper Bus Bar, the submission of ld. Consultant is that the said goods are special copper plates used in electrical panel, transformer, vacuum circuit breaker, classified under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Thus, according to the ld. Consultant, the disputed goods are falling under the definition of capital goods for the purpose of availment of Cenvat credit.

3. Per contra, Shri M.S. Negi, ld. D.R. appearing for the respondent reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order.

4. Heard the ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

5. I find that the invoice on the strength of which cenvat credit has been taken by the appellant clearly indicate the disputed goods and their central excise Tariff classification. Therefore, the observations of ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that no documentary evidences have been submitted by the appellant to prove that the goods are eligible for capital goods is not proper. Further, storage tank is finding a place in clause (vii) in the definition of capital goods contained in Rule 2 (a)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, denial of credit on S.S. Dozer and M.S. Settler is not proper and justified. Since, Copper Bus Bar is used by the appellant as component/spare or accessory to the electrical goods falling under Chapter 85 of the Tariff Act, irrespective of the tariff classification of those disputed goods, Cenvat credit is available, considering the same as capital goods in terms of clause (iii) of Rule 2 (a)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

6. In view of above, I do not find any merits in the impugned order, and thus, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

(S.K. MOHANTY)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Anita

0 2