2013 (4) TMI 436

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... emand of Rs.3,06,043/- for the period prior to 7/7/2009. 2. The issue involved in this case is whether input credit on items like angles, channels, beams, girder flats, plates, HR Sheets etc., used in concrete foundation work and making of machinery support structures is admissible or not. On merits the issue is not contested by the appellant in view of the Larger Bench judgment of CESTAT in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. [2010 (253) ELT 400 (Tri.-LB.)]. 3. The ld. Counsel on behalf of the appellant argued that as per the following judgments they were under the impression that cenvat credit was rightly admissible on the disputed items: (i) 2006 (195) ELT 164 (Tri.-Mumbai) Ispat Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai. (ii) 2006 (206) ELT 573 ( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on admissibility of cenvat credit on disputed items were existing during the relevant period. It is observed from the relied upon judgments that there were certain judgments in favour of the assessee to the effect that credit on disputed items was admissible. The law was settled by the judgment of Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra). Appellant has reversed the credit taken after 7/7/2009, after the amendment of Rule-2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It is difficult to comprehend, as argued by the ld. AR that appellant had a guilty mind when they continued to take inadmissible credit even after 7/7/2009 because there was certain judgments in favour of the assessee and the credit taken on disputed items after 7/7/200 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to proof that these items are being used in the workshop for repair of their machinery and, therefore, Cenvat credit on these items is denied. As this is an issue of interpretation as to whether the assessees are entitled to credit or not therefore, extended period of limitation is not invocable in view of this observation, demand is restricted to the normal period of limitation as discussed above. As this is an issue of interpretation, no penalties were also warranted, therefore, penalty under Section 11AC is waived. Further, the appellants are directed to make deposit of the Cenvat credit, which has to be denied for the normal period, along with interest within 30 days of the communication of this order. In view of the above, the appeal i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X