TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he items were used for supporting structures of the working platform – Penalty is not sustainable – Decided partly in favour of Assessee. - Appeal No.49/2012 - FINAL ORDER NO.40430/2013 - Dated:- 23-8-2013 - P K Das, J. For the Appellant : Shri V Ravindran, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri K P Muralidharan, Supdt (AR) PER : P K Das The applicant filed this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No.49/2012 (M-I), dated 17-09-2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of "Methyl Ethyl Ketone" (MEK) and "Secondary Butyl Alcohol" (SBA) classifiable under Chapter 29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvat Credit Rules by Notification No.16/2009-CE(NT) dated 17.07.2009. He further submits that the Hon'ble Chattisgarh High Court has admitted the appeal against the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra) as reported in 2011 (274) E.L.T.A.78 (Chattirgarh). 6. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that in the present case, the Commissioner (Appeals) already allowed the credit on M.S. Pipes and the other items were used to support the working platform which is the foundation of the platform. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III reported in 2011 (270) E.L.T.465 (S.C.) held that credit on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the working platform around the equipment and hand rails for safety purposes. 8. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra) had held that cement and steel items used for laying foundation for building supporting structures cannot be treated either as 'inputs' or 'capital goods' in relation to the final goods. It has further been held that Notification No.16/2009-CE(NT) (supra) had retrospective effect. In the present case, I find that these items were used for supporting structures of the working platform and, therefore, the case laws replied upon by the learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue would squarely apply herein. 9. The case of A.P.P. Mills Ltd. (supra) as relied upon by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
