w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



CCE, Raipur v/s M/s Chhattisgarh Steel Castings (P) Ltd.

    Excise Appeal No. 966 of 2007-SM

    Decided On, 06 July 2010

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. M. VEERAIYAN
    By, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

    Shri S.K. Bhaskar, DR



Judgment Text

Per M. Veeraiyan :


This is an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No.151-CE/RPR/APPEAL-II/2006 dated 22.1.2007 by which the order of the original authority dated 30.6.2006, which was in favour of the assessee was upheld.


2. None appears for the respondent in spite of notice. Further, written submissions have been filed by the respondent.


3. Heard the ld. DR.


4. The respondent has used MS beam for fabricating supporting structure for the EOT crane. Show Cause Notice dated 7.4.2006 was issued proposing demand of Rs.51,362/- relating to the period 14.8.2002 to 29.8.2002. The original authority after considering the submissions dropped the proceedings and the order of the original authority stands upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).


5. Ld. DR submits that since the items involved are used for fabricating supporting structure, the respondents are not eligible for CENVAT credit and the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE Raipur reported in 2010 (253) ELT 440 will apply to the present case.


6. The contention of the ld. DR that the MS beams are used for fabricating supporting structure and, therefore, not eligible for credit, is acceptable. However, it is noticed that the Show Cause Notice dated 6.4.2006 seeks demand of duty for the period from 14.8.2002 to 29.8.2002. The eligibility of credit of such items have been subject to different interpretation. Therefore, the demand cannot be raised by invoking the extended period of limitation.


7. Thus, while on merits the department has a case

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

, there is no reason to interfere with the order of original authorities which are in favour of the assessee as the demand is clearly time-barred. 8. The appeal is rejected.
O R