9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ER and D.N. PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. Debnath for the Appellant. Dr. Gautam Ray for the Respondent. ORDER Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member.- Heard both sides at length. The Central Excise Appeal No, 592/06 has been filed by the Department against the impugned order dropping allowing Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 6,55,57,942 and the Central Excise Appeal No.10/06 has been filed by the appellant assessee disallowing Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 33,67,481 against the same impugned order. The period involved is May, 2003 to September, 2004. The grievance of the Department is that the Adjudicating Commissioner has wrongly allowed the Cenvat Credit in respect of various iron and steel products and cement used by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 654 (Trib.-New Delhi). 3. As regards the appeal of the assessee, the ld. Jt. CDR, Shri Gautam Ray, supports the order of the Adjudicating Commissioner denying the credit on Welding Electrode, Ammonium Nitrate Galvanized Tower Materials For the reasons stated in the adjudication order itself. In addition, he states that the tower materials have been held as not eligible for Cenvat credit by the recent decision of this Bench vide CCE, C ST v. Shyam DRI Power Ltd. - 2008 (221) ELT 534 (Trib.-Kol.). 4. Shri M.P. Debnath, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the assessee, supports the order of the Adjudicating Commissioner in respect of iron and steel products and cement. Restates that similar items have been allowed Cenvat credit by a dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Raigad. But in regard to iron and steel items used by the assessee, he places reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision in CCE v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. Ex. Ref. No.5 of 2000 dated 24-6-2008 (unreported); (ii) Union of India v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. -2007 (214) ELT 510 (Raj.); (iii) CCE v. Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. 2008 (226) ELT 342 (Mad.). He admits that these decisions being of very recent origin, were not before the Adjudicating Commissioner. 5. As regards the assessees' appeal, he states that in view of the recent decision of the Honbie Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd v. Union of India 2008 (87) RLT 563 welding electrode should b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al goods. 7. On a query from the Bench, both sides agree that considerable amount of cement and iron and steel product has been used admittedly for civil construction outside the production unit and that the Adjudicating Commissioner has merely gone by the bifurcation given in this regard by the appellant assessee without causing any verification. We are, therefore, of the view that in the first instance an exercise needs to be done to cross-check the declaration given by the appellant assessee in this regard and to accurately determine, how much of cement andiron and steel items have been used outside the plant area which are not clearly eligible for grant of Cenvat credit. Several decisions cited before us are also of very recent orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Advocate himself suggested that the matter can perhaps be remanded to the Adjudicating Commissioner for fresh decision, we find that the departmental representatives are also not averse to that course of action as factual verification of utilization of the impugned goods is necessary apart from the necessity to consider several cited decisions which are of recent origin and of course, the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Cotton Spg. Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. (supra). Hence, with the consent of both sides, we set aside the impugned order in toto and allow both the appeals by way of remand with the direction that the Adjudicating Commissioner shall readjudicate the matter afresh after giving a reasonable opportu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
