The Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... vs M/S. Andra Ferro Alloys Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No 50/2009 (V-I) (CE) dated 17/03/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam. ]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes

The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Visakhapatnam-I Commissionerate, VISAKHAPATNAM. Appellant(s)

Versus

M/s. ANDRA FERRO ALLOYS LTD. GARBHAM VILLAGE, VIZIANAGARAM DIST. Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Mohd. Yusuf, Addl. Commissioner (AR) For the Appellant

None

For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 05/02/2015

Date of Decision: 05/02/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 20236 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

After rejecting the request for adjournment, I proceed to decide the appeal itself inasmuch as a short issue is involved. Accordingly, I have heard the learned DR.

2. For better appreciation of Commissioner (A)s order, the relevant portion of the same is being reproduced below.

In this case, the adjudicating authority has clearly shown reasons for the denial based on the usage and the appellant argues that though the usage was so, there were cases where credit on cement and steel was allowed though used for civil purposes. In this regard, the usage of cement and steel was to lay the foundations of the capital goods and to provide supporting structure  technological structures  the credit was not denied. In this case, the reasoning of the adjudicating authority prevails and hence I do not find any reason to disturb the order of the Original Authority.

In view of the above, I pass the following order.

ORDER

The appeal is allowed and the Order-in-Original set aside.

2.1 As it is clear from above, the Commissioner (A) in his finding portion of the order has agreed with the final decision of the adjudicating authority. However, in the order portion, he has written that the appeal is allowed and the order-in-original is set aside. This seems to be an inadvertent mistake on the part of the appellate authority. Inasmuch as the order is self-contradictory vis-`-vis the finding portion, I deem it fit to set aside the same and remand the matter to Commissioner (A) for fresh decision. I make it clear that no opinion on the merits of the case is being rendered and the appellate authority would decide the matter in accordance with the law declared by the higher appellate forums. Revenues appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.

(Order pronounced and dictated in open court)

ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER rv 3