9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the latter allowed the appeal. The appellate authority relied on its own earlier order No.246/2008 dt.12/11/2008 which was passed in another assessee's case. It also relied on a decision of this Tribunal U.P. State Sugar Corporation vs. CCE, Meerut [2007(215) ELT 111 (Tri. Delhi)]. Its decision was also based on a certificate/statement of the Chief Engineer of the assessee-company. 2. In the present appeal filed by the Department against the appellate Commissioner's order, the main grounds are to the effect (a) that Order-in-Appeal No.246/2008 was not accepted by the Department and an appeal has been preferred to this Tribunal, (b) that, in any case, the facts of the said Order-in-Appeal are distingui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufactured/fabricated out of a variety of structurals viz. MS angles, channels, beams, rods, joists, HR plates, coils etc. One item mentioned in the end-use column of this statement is sugar godown. Another item is electricity transmission line, A third item is molasses tank. Presumably, after noting these items, the show-cause notice alleged that the assessee was using the structurals in civil construction work and in the fabrication of platforms and other support structures for various items of plant and machinery and also in the fabrication of transmission lines. On a perusal of the annexure to show-cause notice, I find that total credit of Rs.47,981/- was shown to have been taken on HR coils covered by three invoices, Nos,201, 209 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g about the machinery fabricated/manufactured out of the structural items. However, the Chief Engineer's statement specifies the structural items and also states that these were used in the fabrication of weighbridge. There is no evidence to show that the weighbridge fabricated out of the structural items covered by the above three invoices is located within the factory premises of the respondent. If that be so, the structural items in question cannot be held to have been used within the factory of the respondent and consequently cannot be treated as 'CENVATable' capital goods. In other words, the denial of credit of Rs.10,350/- by the original authority is in order. 4. Apparently, the Tribunal's decision in UP State Sugar Corporation case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
