TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ana Global Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Raichur [2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)] - the appellant is not eligible for the credit - the appellant directed to deposited the amount attributable to normal period of limitation which is worked out as ₹ 39,12,002 to be submitted as pre-deposit – Upon such submission rest of the duty to be stayed till the disposal – Partial stay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CENVAT credit has been imposed and interest has been demanded. 2. After hearing both sides, we find that the learned Commissioner has held that these items are used for manufacturing supporting structures and in view of the decision in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Raichur [2010 (253) ELT 440 (L.B.)], the appellant is not eligible for the credit. She has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e definition of inputs is retrospective in effect and therefore the demand for the earlier period is sustainable. He also submits that the demand for CENVAT credit of ₹ 2.2 crores is to be upheld in view of the fact that invoices were not in the name of the assessee. 4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. As regards the credit taken on the basis of invoices not in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be sufficient for the purpose of hearing the appeal. Accordingly we direct the appellant to deposit an amount of ₹ 39,12,002/ (rupees thirty nine lakhs twelve thousand and two only) within six weeks and report compliance to the Dy. Registrar on 18.6.2013 who shall report compliance to the Bench on 25.6.2013. Subject to deposit of the above amount, the requirement of predeposit of the balan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
