TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e scrap to them. The appellant have also placed on record the job work challans under which the raw material had been sent to the job workers - when the appellant had specifically intimated the department as early as in March 2006, that they would be sending the Cenvat credit availed MS coils/sheets to job workers to get the MS trays fabricated, the department should have at least asked the appellant to produce the job work challans which according to them are available with them – Prima facie the appellant have case in their favour - The requirement of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty waived till the disposal of appeal – Stay granted. - Appeal No. 56882-56884 of 2013 (SM) - Stay Order No. 58052-58054/2013 - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals), these orders of the Assistant Commissioner/Additional Commissioner were upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) by a common order-in-appeal dated 11/1/13 against which these three appeals have been filed alongwith stay applications. 2. Heard both the sides in respect of stay applications. 3. Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the MS trays got fabricated by the appellant through their job workers, being component of capital goods (ovens) falling under Chapter 84, are covered by the definition of capital goods, that the inputs, in question, having been used in the manufacture of capital goods would be eligible for Cenvat credit, that the appellant after receiving the Cenvat credit availed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the scrap from the job workers, that in any case MS coils and sheets falling under Chapter 72 are neither inputs nor capital goods, that the appellant have also failed to show the booking of goods as capital goods for the purpose of depreciation under the Income Tax Act during the respective years, that the appellant have suppressed the relevant information and hence longer limitation period has correctly invoked and that in view of this, this is not the case for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The dispute in this case is about the MS sheets/coils received by the appellant which according to them had been sent to job workers for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
