|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1086 - CESTAT AHMEDABADCENVAT Credit - inputs/capital goods - MS channel, MS Angles, MS drums, MS Pipe, HR Sheets, CR Sheets, MS Fabricated support etc. used in the manufacture of processed drums / reels, packing drums - MS Drums etc. which were used during the manufacturing process as well as packaging of the final product namely electric wires and cables - time limitation - HELD THAT:- As per the fact of the present case in view of the chartered engineer certificate submitted by the appellant, the use of the goods is not under dispute that the same were used in the manufacture of processed drums/ packing drums/ bobbin. These drums are used in relation to manufacture of final product as per the nature of the final product which is wire and cables. The wires and cables for purpose of processing in the manufacture are shifted from one process machine to other process machine which is possible only after winding of wires and cables on the drums and also for the purpose of packing by winding of final product. On the basis of this use the goods i.e. iron and steel material are clearly used in or in relation the manufacture, directly or indirectly, whether contained or not in the final product. It is settled that if any goods used in the manufacture/fabrication of capital goods and such manufactured/fabricated goods used within the factory of the assessee, cenvat credit is admissible. Accordingly, on merit the appellant have rightly availed cenvat credit on iron and steel materials used for manufacture of processed drums/reels/packing drums etc. which were further used in the factory of the appellant manufacturer. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- When issue involve is of interpretation of cenvat credit rules, no mala fide can be attributed to the appellant. Further, the appellant have been declaring the availment of cenvat credit which is in dispute in their ER- 1 return, therefore, there is no suppression and wilful mis-statement with intent to evade duty on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, the demand for the extended period is not sustainable also on limitation. In the present case also the demand for the extended period is not sustainable on limitation also. The impugned order are not sustainable - Appeal allowed.
|
