Ex. Appeal No. 513/11 (Arising out of O/A No. the Order-in-Appeal No. 24/Bol/2011 dated 16.03.2011 passed by Commr. of Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata). Case: M/s. Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Ex. Appeal No. 513/11 (Arising out of O/A No. the Order-in-Appeal No. 24/Bol/2011 dated 16.03.2011 passed by Commr. of Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri S. Mahapatra, G.M. (Accounts) and For Respondents: Shri S. Chakraborty, Asstt. Commr. (A.R.) |
| Judges | I.P. Lal, Member (T) |
| Issue | Excise Act |
| Judgement Date | June 27, 2013 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
I.P. Lal, Member (T), (East Zonal Bench, Kolkata)
-
The present appeal is filed by the appellant against the Order-in-Appeal No. 24/Bol/2011 dated 16.03.2011 passed by Commr. of Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of iron & steel products of different grades. They availed cenvat credit on the items, namely, carbon electrode paste, refractory materials, such as, Whytheat etc. treating them as input. Revenue was, however, of the view that the said goods were capital goods in terms of Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, being the capital goods, the cenvat credit was available during the first year to the tune of 50% of the duty, whereas, they took credit of 100% of the duty paid on the said materials. Accordingly, the show-cause notice was issued demanding interest of Rs. 2,81,260/- for the excess availment of credit for the period from 2006-07 to 2008-09. The adjudicating authority confirmed the said demand of interest under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
-
At the outset, the ld. Authorized Representative, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that they had availed the credit considering the impugned goods as input and, therefore, restrictions of 50% availment of credit, were not applicable to them. He further submitted that as per the manufacturing process, they used the product as tamping/patching material in their furnace to provide high voltage to the furnace and to prevent hot metal coming out from furnace during operation of manufacture of ferro alloys. The above uses are clearly akin to use of lubricating oils, greases, cutting oils or coolants used in the machineries to keep them in optimum working condition for giving optimum output and therefore, they are in the nature of input. He further contended that the present case relates to the period of from 2006-07 to 2008-09 and the show-cause notice has been issued to them on 04.12.09. The contention is that the show-cause notice is time bar. He also stated that the excess credit taken was never utilized by them and therefore, the question of interest does not arise.
-
The ld. A.R. appearing for the Revenue, has stated that as per Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the capital goods means:
(A) the following goods, namely:-
(i)....
(ii)....
(iii....
(iv)....
(v) refractories and refractory materials
It shows that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial