Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1527 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - Inputs or capital goods? - TMT bars, plates, channels, cement, MS angles, CR coils, joints, shapes and sections, etc. - goods used in construction of civil structures of factory shed and parts thereof - time limitation - HELD THAT:- If the articles on which the appellant herein has availed the cenvat credit fulfil the said User Test Principle, those clearly falls within the definition of capital goods as defined under Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - this principles of User Test has been laid down in various decisions including COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR VERSUS M/S RAJASTHAN SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD. [2010 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT]. The certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer has specifically certified that the impugned goods have been used by the appellant in their various plants and machinery such as boiler, EOT Crane, Ducting, Material Lifting Lifts, Winding drums, etc. This specific mention falsifies the observation of Commissioner(Appeals) that no physical verification about the equipment and the process thereof for manufacture of electrical insulation press boards has been done by the Chartered Engineer. Otherwise also law has been settled that the certificate issued by the authorised Chartered Accountant’s or Chartered Engineer’s having presumption of correctness attached to it cannot be rejected unless and until there is sufficient evidence to rebut the said presumption attached to those certificate. Thus, there are no reason to reject the certificates rather it is held that the certificates as an evidence produced by the appellant proving the satisfaction of the user principle test, as far as the impugned objected goods are concerned. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The present is not the case of suppression of facts on part of appellant nor there is any apparent intention of appellant to evade duty. Hence, Department was not entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|