Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 165 - CESTAT KOLKATACENVAT Credit - capital goods or not - foundation bolts would fall under Chapter 73 or not - time limitation - suppression of facts or not - Rule 2 (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the foundation bolts have been received and used by the Appellant in their factory where they are manufacturing dutiable goods. As the vendor has classified the goods under CET 8455, the Appellant has taken the Credit on the foundation bolts as Capital goods, taking the Cenvat Credit in two different years. Even otherwise as per the definition of inputs in terms of Rule 2 (k) of CCR, 2004 as it stood at the material time, any item which is used in or in relation to the manufacturing activity directly or indirectly will qualify for Cenvat Credit. In the case law of A.C.C. Ltd. cited supra, the Tribunal has held that the assessee will be eligible for the Cenvat Credit for the foundation bolts purchased by them. For coming to this conclusion, they have relied on the case law of RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., SURAT [2005 (10) TMI 203 - CESTAT, MUMBAI]. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact that the Cenvat Credit taken on the foundation bolts has been reflected by them in their ER-1 Returns in 2007 and 2008. They have also enclosed copies of RG-23C records, wherein the Credit taken for the foundation bolt has been shown clearly. Therefore, the Department cannot claim that assessee has indulged in any suppression. The Show Cause Notice has been issued on 27/04/2011 for the Credit taken in 2007 and 2008. Since all the details of Cenvat Credit have been properly recorded by the Appellant in the ER-1, the question of suppression will not be sustainable - the present confirmed demand for the extended period is legally not sustainable even on account of limitation. Appeal allowed.
|