9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R), for the Respondent. ORDER Short point for consideration in this case is whether the appellants are eligible to take Cenvat credit on MS plates, channels, beams, angles, etc., which are classifiable under Chapters 72 and 73 of CETA. It is not in dispute that the said items were not the items enumerated in the definition of capital goods even though credit was taken initially treating the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Chartered Engineer's certificate produced by the appellants has been rejected on the ground that the Chartered Engineer's certificate was not supported by any documentary evidence. It has also been held that the Chartered Engineer's certificate was produced after more than one year. 5. I find that in this case the show cause notice was issued on 24-8-2010. I find that Annexure I to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he course of hearing, it was submitted by the appellant that the size of the appellant is such that no detailed records as to the utilization of inputs in the form of bill of materials issued to workshop or for fabrication and further issue of the finished item for production, etc., have been maintained. It is his submission that the statement given by them which was enclosed as Annexure I to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is seen from the Chartered Engineer's certificate that it gives the size of the former sheets/tundish, number of such items required, the quantity of steel required for manufacture which on verification could have revealed whether the appellants have taken the credits correctly or not. No doubt there is a procedural omission in view of the fact that the appellant should have indicated these item ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, I find that in view of the fact that the appellant did not maintain proper records and did not follow the proper procedure viz. submission of details in the ER1 returns, etc., the penalty has to be imposed. 7. Accordingly, in view of the above observations, I take a view that appellant is eligible for the Cenvat credit. For the lapses, in my opinion, a penalty of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
