9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e First Schedule to the CETA, 1985, vide invoice No. 89, dated 30-9-2009 of M/s. Armes Maini Storage Systems Pvt. Ltd. vide RG-23-A Pt. II, entry No. 17, dated 31-10-2009 used for storage inputs in terms of definition of Rule 2(A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which is not capital goods. A show-cause notice dated 21-1-2011 was issued proposing denial and recovery of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 36,200/- wrongly taken on said ineligible capital goods along with interest under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Sections 11A and 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 and for penal action under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority vide impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it has been allowed as inputs, as in the case of Banco Products (I) Ltd. 5. The authorized representative for Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 6. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. I find that the issue involved in this case is denial of Cenvat credit on storage system which has been installed in the appellant's factory. It is undisputed that the said storage system is used by appellant for storing various inputs/materials which are used by him for manufacturing final products. It is also not disputed that the storage system manufactured by appellants are cleared on payment of appropriate Central Excise duty. Denial of Cenvat credit is only on the ground that the said storage system cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In my view the appellant had every reason to entertain a bona fide belief that they are eligible for availment of Cenvat credit, as these storage systems are used within the factory premises. Show-cause notice was issued in the year 2009. In my view the show-cause notice is blatantly time barred as there is no dispute that appellant had filed prescribed returns to the authorities. There cannot be any suppression or wilful misstatement of facts.
8. In view of the foregoing reasons, I find that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on merits as well as limitation also. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
(Operative portion of the order pronounced) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
