Allowed

Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise

Telangana HC10 Aug 2023CEA/12/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed Central Excise Appeal No. 12 of 2005 filed by Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. The court held that, given its Division Bench had already allowed a similar appeal on identical facts regarding machinery accessories, it endorsed that view to deny the revenue's claim. The appeal was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Central Excise Appeal No. 12 of 2005 allowed; denial of modvat credit cannot be sustained. No order as to costs.

Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶8

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No: 12 of2005

¶9

Between:

¶10

Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd, SllL Campus - 5O7 154, Paloncha Khammam District A.P.rep by its Company Secretary Shri M.Subrahmanyam

¶11

...Appellant

¶12

AND

¶13

The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad-lll Commissionerate, Hyderabad...Respondent

¶14

Appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act,^'1944 against the final order No. 1414-1416 of 2004 in Customs Appeal No.E/285120O2, on the file of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, at Bangalore dated 24-08-2004, preferred against the Order-in-Appeal No.188/2001 (H.lll) CE, dated 3-10-2001 on the file of the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad, preferred against the order in C.No.V/72l30/9/97T4 dated.24-10-97 on the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Warangal Division, Warangal.

¶15

This Appeal coming on for hearing upon persuing the order of the Appellate Tribunal as well as the order of the Commissioner and upon hearing the arguments of SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN, Advocate for the Appellant and GP FOR CENTRAL EXCISE for the Respondent.

¶16

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶17

TITE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSftY

¶18

AND

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYI\NA ALISHI'TTY

¶20

C ENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL No.12 c,f 2OO5

¶21

JIIDGMET{T:^(?er I totl'ble Si Jusfr'c€ P.S,'IM I(OSr{f,l

¶22

Heard Sri Halla Gunaranjan, leamed counse l^,rppearing for the appellant in this Centra-I Excise Appeal anrl learned Government Pl:ader for Central Excise.

¶23

The instant appeal has been filed unc er Sr:ction 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

¶24

It has bet'n informed by the learned cc,unsel :rppearing on either side tha[ there are two connected alpeals of the same assessee i.e. Ct)A Nos.23 and 24 of 2005.

¶25

Both the connected appeals i.e. CEA Nos.2l] ztnd 24 of 2OO5 stood di:iposed of on 12.07.2017, wheretry taking into consideration :he judicial pronouncements or thr: subject matter, the Division Bench of this High Court had hcld as under:

¶26

It i:; not in dispute that the coLurtr, s of heaug fabicated^{structuresand bracings are used tc,' srtpport the} bo er in^'.he potuer plant of the appellant-a:;sessee. TLte claint of tfuz appellant-assessee that th?" boile'r would not stand witttout the support thereof is also rtol o'ented. That

¶27

¶28

being so, such columns^qnd bracings cannot be equated to ciuil constructions and would become a part of or an accessory to th,e machinery. Therefore, tle denial of moduat credit on the columns of Lrcaug fabricated structures and bracings cqnnot be sustained".

¶29

In view of the aJoresaid facts, particularly wherein in the identical set of facts, the Division Bench of this High Court has already allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee, we are also inclined to endorse the same view. Accordingly the appeal stands allowed arrd it is held that the Coal Bunkers and its parts with accessories as well as Chequered Plates and Hard Plates would become a part of or an accessory to the machinery of the appellant-assessee company. So far as the denial of modvat credit on the Coal Bunkers and its parts with accessories as well as Chequered Plates and Hard Plates cannot be sustained.

¶30

The appeal is allowed answering the substantial questions of law raised in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. No order as to costs. t

¶31

¶32

Conseqrrently, miscellaneous petitio ns pending, if any,

¶33

shall stand clrsed.

¶34

¶35

Sd'. I].S. CHIRANJ VI .rotNT REGTS

//TRUE COPY//

S ECTION OFFICER

To,

The Custorrs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, FKOCI-WTC Building, KG Road, Bangalore.(with rec:ords, if any)

¶40

The Comm ssioner of Customs & Central Excise (App,:a s), Hyderabad.

¶41

The Assis.ant Commissioner of Central Excise V\rarangal Division, Warangal.

¶42

One CC to SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN, Advocate [OF'UC]

¶43

Two CCs to SC FOR CENTRAL EXCISE, High Ccurt fo'the State of Telangana ;rt Hyderabad.(OPUC )

¶44

Two CD Co ries

r(am \, v

HIGH COUFIT

DATED:10flt$l2023

JUDGMEN'I

CEA.No.12 of 2005

,fi\ir' srai;
1$ s[?m :,)
\i
*
.,1

¶51

THE APPEAL lS ALLOWED

¶52

qi6

Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tata Sky Limited a company registered under the provisions Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii, Hyderabad. Vs R.C.C.Sales Pvt. Ltd.

The Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (Tds) Vs Income-tax Appellate Tribunal

M/s. Hame Trading Company Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/s. Hame Trading Company Vs Commercial Tax Officer

M/s. Newstoday Private Limited, a Private Limited Vs Union of India, rep by Secretary