2011 (6) TMI 590

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , Authorised Representative (SDR) for the respondent Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant have filed this appeal against the impugned order denying CENVAT credit on capital goods against duty paying documents.  2. The facts of the case are that the appellants were the job-worker of L&T. During the period July 2000 to March 2002 the appellant received certain machineries, moulds and tools fix .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... T credit availed by the appellants. Therefore, the appellants are in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Shri Subba Reddy, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant appeared and submitted that the appellant have informed the department on 18/12/2000 as to the availment of CENVAT credit on capital goods and thereafter certain queries were made to them which were also answered by them in their letter .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... artment vide their letter date 18/12/2000 that they are taking credit on these capital goods which have been supplied by their principal manufacturer for doing some job-work activities.  Therefore, it was well within the knowledge of the department in the year 2000 itself and the show-cause notice issued in the year 2005 by alleging suppression is not sustainable by invoking the extended peri .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X