COMMISSIONERS OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. SCHOTT GLASS INDIA PVT. LTD.
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
P.K. Das, J. -
(1.)COMMON issue is involved in these appeals and therefore, both are taken up together for disposal. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent seeks adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel is not well.
(2.)AFTER hearing the Ld. Authorised Representative for Revenue and on perusal of records, I find that the appeals are old one and the matters may be decided at this stage.
On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the respondent availed cenvat credit on HR Coils, MS Channels, and MS Beams etc., used to make the foundation and to raise the structure for support of the Furnace. The Adjudicating Authority denied the cenvat credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication order holding that HR Coils, MS channels, and MS Beams etc., utilised to make the foundation and to raise structure for support the furnace, which is capital goods and cenvat credit is admissible. It is seen that the respondent also argued that the demand is barred by limitation and no findings was given by the Commissioner (Appeals) as he decided the matter on merits.
(3.)I find that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur : 2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri.LB) held that goods like cement and steel items used for laying foundation and for building supporting structure, cannot be treated either as input or capital goods or inputs to the final products and therefore no credit of duty paid on the said item can be allowed under the Cenvat Credit Rules. In my considered view, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have examined utilisation of all the items in detail alongwith other issues like limitation.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.