9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led and the laptop was so used. Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice alleging that the said laptop was not either part of any machine or linked with the production process. A Show Cause Notice proposing to deny Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.28,280/-, being duty paid on the said laptop was issued. The appellants produced the quotations given by Van De Meerakker by who was the supplier of the machine and the said quotation clearly showed that the laptop was required for managing the machine. After considering the submissions of the appellant, the adjudicating authority denied the Cenvat credit for the reason that the laptop is movable and hence not capital goods (as recorded in para 5.5 of the order-in-original). Aggrieved by the said order, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 2 (a) (A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, the goods falling under Chapter, inter alia, 84 are to be regarded as 'capital goods'; that nowhere in the definition of 'capital goods' is it required that such goods should be immovable and the moveable goods will not fall within the category of 'capital goods'; and that in the category of 'capital goods', a number of items are moveable goods and some may also fall within the category of immovable goods. And, therefore, the feature for 'capital goods' has to be reckoned in the context of the definition of 'capital goods' given in the statutory rules. They have also produced the letter dated 24.04.2007 from the supplier of the machine. The demand also stands assailed on the point of limitation in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot to treat the laptop as capital goods. As such, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to avail the credit of duty paid on the said capital goods. 6. Apart from the merits of the case, I find that the demand is hopelessly barred by the limitation. Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the Show Cause Notice was issued within a period of one year from the date of audit objections raised and as such is within the limitation period. I observe that the above finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct in as much as the relevant date as specified under the law does not start from the date of audit objection. Adopting the said date as the relevant date, for the purposes of limitation, would amount to rewrite the law. Admitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
