Vishal Precisiion Steel Tubes And ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ...

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 14-2009 dated 17/08/2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore]

For approval and signature:

HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL 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?

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

VISHAL PRECISIION STEEL TUBES AND STRIPS PVT LTD. PLOT. NO-47, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, HOSKOTE, BANGALORE Appellant(s)

Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise ,Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I POST BOX NO 5400...CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. N. Anand Adv

For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, A.R. For the Respondent

Date of Hearing: 06/08/2015

Date of Decision: 06/08/2015

CORAM:

HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER

Final Order No. 21765 / 2015

Per : ARCHANA WADHWA

Revenue by entertaining a view that the activity of slitting and cutting HT/CR coils into HR/CR strips does not amount of manufacture as held by the Honble High Court of Delhi in the case of UOI Vs Faridabad iron and Steel Traders Association [2005 (181)ELT A 68 (SC)] initiated proceedings against the appellant for denial of the CENVAT credit. The said proceedings stand culminated into the present impugned order passed by the lower authorities confirming demands to the tune of Rs 6.98 crores approximately and imposing penalty of identical amounts under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules.

2. It is undisputed that the appellants were paying duty of excise on their final product by utilizing the CENVAT credit. As such the question required to be decided is that irrespective of the fact that whether the activity of the appellant amounts to manufacture or not and when admittedly, the credit availed is being utilized for payment of duty of excise on the said activity, whether there would be any obligation on the part of the assessee to reverse the credit. Though the appellants have referred to various decisions of the Tribunal confirmed by the Honble Bombay High Court, we find that all such decisions stands considered by the majority order of the Tribunal in the case of Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd., Vs CCE [2015(317)ELT 538 (Tri-Del)]. Wherein it stands held that when the CENVAT credit availed on the inputs stand utilized for payment of duty on the final product, there would be no requirement of reversal of the said credit even if the activity undertaken by the assessee does not amount to manufacture. By following the said decision, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.

(Order pronounced in open court)

ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER pnr

2