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

M/s. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. v/s Commissioner of Central Excise

Company & Directors' Information:- JINDAL POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = U04010CT1995PLC008985

Company & Directors' Information:- JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LIMITED [Active] CIN = L27105HR1979PLC009913

Company & Directors' Information:- S. G. POWER AND STEEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U14290DL2012PTC240718

Company & Directors' Information:- R. S. STEEL AND POWER PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100CT2009PTC021362

    Excise Appeal No. 3737 of 2006- Ex[SM] [Arising Out of Order-In-Appeal No. 159/RPR-I of 2006 dated 30.8.2006 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals I), Raipur]

    Decided On, 21 January 2014

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


    For the Appellants: Ms. Reena Khair & Ms. Tuhina, Advocates. For the Respondent: Ms. Shweta Bector, DR.

Judgment Text

Archana Wadhwa, J.

1. Without going into the detailed reasoning adopted by the adjudicating authority as also by Commissioner (Appeals) and the detailed arguments advanced by the learned advocate Ms Reena Khair, I find that the short dispute in the present appeal relates to removal of old and used capital goods from the appellants factory during the period April, 2001 to March, 2003. As per the Revenue, inasmuch as the said capital goods were cenvatable and as the appellants had taken the credit of duty paid on the same, they were required to pay the duty at the time of clearance of said machines. On the other hand, it is also the contention that the said machines were purchased by them prior to period 1994 and no Cenvat credit stand availed in respect of same.

2. It is seen that appellants have taken categorical stand and has placed on record the accounts maintained by them. They have also submitted that an identical dispute covering same period was the subject matter of earlier Show cause notice issued to them, which has been finally dropped by the Commissioner vide his order dated 8.3.06. As regards the capital goods cleared to their sister unit, it stand pleaded by them that they have been able to establish the co-relation upto 80% of the clearance and the finding of Commissioner (Appeals) are without verification of the said documents. They have also challenged the demand of limitation.

3. Inasmuch as the appellants main argument is that the capital goods were not cenvatable having been purchased prior to 1994, for which purpose, they also produced the statutory records, I am of the view that scrutiny of such records is very essential to decide the disputed issue. Such scrutiny has not been done by the lower authorities and no conclusive finding based up-on the entries made in the statutory records stand arrived at. As such, I deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for deciding the same afresh. Needless to say that appellants would be given an opportunity to put forward their case as also the documentary evidence in support of their contention. As the matter is being remanded, the original adjudicating authority would also examine the appellants claim that for the same period, covering the same disputed issue, they have already been issued a show cause notice which stand dropped by the Commissioner. The plea of limitation also be raised by the appellant before the adju

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

dicating authority. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the appellant is at liberty to raise their defence pleas as regards merits as well as limitation or any other point. 4. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.