Excise Appeal No. 1827 of 2008 - Ex (SM) [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 305/CE/CHD/2008 dated 30.5.2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Chandigarh]. Case: Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Parabolic Drugs Ltd.. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Excise Appeal No. 1827 of 2008 - Ex (SM) [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 305/CE/CHD/2008 dated 30.5.2008 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Chandigarh] |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R.K. Mishra, A.R. and For Respondents: Ajay Jain, Advocate |
| Judges | Ashok Jindal, Member (J) |
| Issue | Excise |
| Judgement Date | December 22, 2014 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
Ashok Jindal, Member (J), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)
-
Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that items namely MS pipes, MS Channels. MS Angles, girders, bars, structures, MS plates, shapes and sections which are falling under Chapter 72 of the first schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act are being used by the respondent in manufacturing of capital goods. Therefore, the respondents are entitled to take Cenvat credit of the same.
-
Brief facts of the case are that for manufacturing capital goods namely, cefixime, sterile, new solvent recovery, new pipe rack, utility block for sterile/cefixime, axetil amorphous, the respondents procured the goods mentioned in para 1 herein and taken the Cenvat credit on the same on the premise that certain goods are capital goods and certain goods are used by the respondents as inputs for capital goods. As these goods procured by the respondents are not capital goods, therefore, the show cause notice was issued to deny the Cenvat credit on the said goods as same has been used by the respondent for construction of the structures and fixtures and, therefore, they are not entitled to take Cenvat credit on the same. The adjudication took place. The adjudicating authority sought quantification of the material used by the respondent in manufacturing of capital goods. In the absence of any clarification given by the respondent, adjudicating authority denied the Cenvat credit to the respondent. The said order was challenged by the respondent before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who examined the issue and held that respondents are entitled to take Cenvat credit of the material used for manufacturing, in capital goods. Aggrieved from the said order, Revenue is in appeal before me.
-
Learned AR submits that at the time of adjudication, usage and clarification of material used in manufacturing of capital goods was called for from the respondents which they did not provide. Therefore, they are not entitled to take Cenvat credit as held by the adjudicating authority but the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not discussed anything about the clarification of the material used in the manufacturing of capital goods. Therefore, impugned order lacks merits, hence, required to be set aside.
-
On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that in this case, only allegation against the respondent is that they are not entitled to take Cenvat...
To continue reading
Request your trial