Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Jai Balaji Industries Limited (Unit IV) Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax (CESTAT Kolkata)
Appeal Number : Excise Appeal No. 76313 of 2016
Date of Judgement/Order : 25/08/2021
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

M/s Jai Balaji Industries Limited (Appellant) has filed the current appeal being aggrieved against Order-in- Original dated March 10, 2016 (OIO) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, Service Tax, Durgapur.

Factually, the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products of different grades classifiable under Chapters 72 & 73 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had availed Cenvat credit on Angles, Channels, Joists, Beams, TMT Bars, Plate, H.R. Coils, H.R. Sheets, Rounds, Sheets. Billets, Flats, Paints, Rails, Castings, Coils, Electrode/Welding Electrode and Miscellaneous Chemical Products falling under different headings (“Impugned goods”).

Three periodical show-cause notices were issued by the department alleging that the impugned goods were not defined as capital goods under Rule 2(a)of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (“Cenvat Credit Rules”). Accordingly, it was alleged that the credit availed and utilized by the Appellant was irregular.

Accordingly, three separate adjudication orders were passed and the Appellant had challenged all the three Orders-in-Original before this Tribunal. All the three cases were remanded to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication after taking into consideration all evidences on record and after due verification of the claim of the Appellants on the use of the items. The Commissioner vide single OIO held that credit availed and utilized by the Appellant was irregular.

Appellant submits that the Commissioner in the remand proceeding has not followed the directions of the Tribunal as no verification was got conducted by the Commissioner despite having been pointed out to him in the remand proceedings. Moreover the Cenvat credit was disallowed on Electrode/Welding Electrode which were also used in the manufacturing process without which it is not possible to manufacture the finished goods. Further, the Appellant submitted that this Tribunal has already allowed the appeal in respect of their sister units where similar/identical items were involved.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031