Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 1580 - CESTAT AHMEDABADRectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record - applicant submits that the order was pronounced in the open court as “Appeal allowed”, however in the order No. A/12089/2017 dated 28.08.2017, the order was passed as “Appeal allowed by way of remand.” - HELD THAT:- I find from the note-sheet, it is clear that Hon'ble Member (Judicial), after hearing the matter allowed the appeal. However, in the typed and signed order, the appeal has been allowed by way of remand, therefore, there is an apparent error. Accordingly, the order dated 28.08.2017 is recalled and taken up for fresh disposal as agreed by the ld. Counsel. CENVAT Credit - capital goods - steel structural items - HELD THAT:- Since the appellant is not pressing for three items i.e. Structural Steel/ MS Beams, Base Frame and Lighting protection mat, the demand to the extent of these goods stands confirmed, without going into merits of the case - demand upheld. CENVAT Credit - capital goods - Base Plate - HELD THAT:- The appellant have received the Base Plates as part of capital goods falling under Chapter heading 84779000. Since the classification of this item has not been challenged by the Revenue that it is falling under Chapter 84, the same is eligible for Cenvat credit as per definition of capital goods. Therefore, the credit in respect of Base Plate is allowed. CENVAT Credit - capital goods - Structure for creel loading system - HELD THAT:- The same is installed as structure which is exclusively used for rolling of material from one stage of manufacturing to other and therefore, it is clearly a part of material handling system and falling under the definition of the capital goods and hence the credit is admissible. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The issue of eligibility of Cenvat credit on identical goods was a matter of dispute for long and various contrary judgments were passed on the issue, it cannot be said that the appellant had a malafide intention - Penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part.
|