TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd., (2010 (4) TMI 429 - CHHAITISGARH HIGH COURT ) and Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2008 (7) TMI 55 - HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN) - impugned order denying the cenvat credit is not sustainable. H.R. Coil, M.S. Girder, G.C. Sheets, M.S. Channels, shape and section etc. - Held that:- The appellants plea with regard to evidence given in respect of use of these items has not been considered at all and simply a finding has been that these items are generally used for making of supporting structures for machinery and therefore would not be eligible for cenvat credit in view of the judgment of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur (2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)). In cases, where the steel items, in question, have b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner eight separate orders by which the cenvat credit demands mentioned above were confirmed alongwith interest and penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed on the appellant in each case. Against these orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), the details of which are given below:- Sl. No. Appeal No. date O-I-O No. date Amount of cenvat credit disallowed (Rs.) Goods on which credit has been disallowed Period 1 84/10 dt. 29.03.10 327/AC/MBD/2009 dt. 28.01.10 3,29,322/- H.R. Coil, M.S. Girder, M.S. Bar, Coils/ Wire Rod M.S. Plate and shape sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The above appeals were disposed of by Commissioner (Appeals) by a common order No. 166-173/CE/MRT-II/2010 dated 17.05.2010 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Assistant Commissioner s orders with regard to denial of the cenvat credit and confirmation of cenvat credit demands alongwith interest. However, he set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) these eight appeals have been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Alok Arora, Advocate, the ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that so far as the welding electrodes and paint and thinner are concerned, the use of these items for repair and maintenance of capital goods is not disputed; that paints and thinners are specif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pt of these items, issue slips as well as certificate of G.M. (Technical) of the factory countersigned by a Chartered Engineer; that issue slips clearly show the quantity of the steel item, the description of the steel item and where the same was used; that neither in the order-in-original nor order-in-appeal the use of these items has been considered and at both the stages the cenvat credit has been denied; on the general ground that these items are normally used for supporting structure; that the ground on which the Cenvat credit has been denied in respect of steel items used in fabrication of machinery or parts thereof is totally incorrect, that when the steel items are used for fabrication of capital goods or parts thereof, the same wou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for repair and maintenance are not eligible for cenvat credit. Secondly, the appellant have not produced any evidence with regard to their use. But the ground regarding evidence of use of welding electrodes has not been taken in the show cause notice, as the show cause notice has been issued for denying the cenvat credit on welding electrodes only on the basis that the same are not input. In any case, the welding electrodes can be used either for fabrication of new machinery or its part or for repair and maintenance. While in the first case, the same would be eligible for cenvat credit as input in the second case the same would be eligible for cenvat credit in view of judgement of Hon ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Ambuja Cem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence given in respect of use of these items has not been considered at all and simply a finding has been that these items are generally used for making of supporting structures for machinery and therefore would not be eligible for cenvat credit in view of the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur reported as 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri. LB). In cases, where the steel items, in question, have been used for fabrication of sugar mill machinery or its part, the same would be eligible for cenvat credit as input. The appellant in this regard has produced issue slip coupled with the certificate given by General Manager (Technical) countersigned by Chartered Engineer. In my view before rejecting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
