TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods in terms of Rule 2(a)(A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, goods falling under Chapter 84 are to be treated as capital goods. There is nothing in the definition to assert that if the capital goods are movable, they would not be considered as capital goods. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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, the appellant filed appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected their appeal. 2. I have heard Shri A. Sharma, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant and Shri UK Srivastava, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue. 3. The lower authorities have denied the CENVAT credit of duty of Rs.28,280/- availed by the appellant in respect of laptop on the ground that the same cannot be considered to be a capital goods. In addition, interest of Rs.1,371/- stands confirmed and penalty of Rs.28,280/- stands imposed. 4. The appellants have taken a categorical stand that laptop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les. 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 as much as the Show Cause Notice was issued on 09.02.2009, whereas the credit was availed during the period 2007-08. 5. I find that the lower authorities have primarily rejected the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant on the ground that the said laptop was imported separately from the machine and the appellant was working on the very same machine prior to the purchase of laptop. As such, it cannot be concluded that the laptop was a capital goods supplied when the machine itself and as such was an integral part. However, I find that admittedly, during the period when the credit was avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
