9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant with respect to OIA No.CS/113/DMN/VAPI-I/2011-12, dt. 29.11.2011 under which OIO No.VAPI-I/DEMAND/13/2010-11, dt. 15.12.2010 passed by the adjudicating authority was upheld. Under OIO dt. 15.12.2010, a Cenvat Credit of Rs. 3,44,164/- was confirmed against the appellant, alongwith interest, and an equivalent penalty was also imposed upon the appellant under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re required to be undertaken as per international standards. Ld. Advocate also argued that show cause notice dt. 23.12.2009 is grossly time barred as the demand period is from June 2006 to April 2008. It was his case that the first appellate authority has rejected their claim for Cenvat Credit on the basis of Larger Bench judgment in the case of M/s. Vandana Global Limited Vs. CCE, Raipur [2010 (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... flame proof well glass, tube light fitting and sheet profiles for roofing of the plant etc. which do not fall in any of the Chapters mentioned in the definition of capital goods given in Rule 2(a)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It was strongly argued by the Ld. A.R. that on merits no Cenvat Credit is admissible to the appellant on the items which are classifiable in Chapters other than spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the manufacturers and the department. Conflicting views were being expressed by various courts as claimed by the appellant before the first appellate authority. The issue on admissibility of such items was finally decided by the Larger Bench in the case of M/s. Vandana Global Limited Vs. CCE, Raipur (supra). In the realm of conflicting interpretations given by various benches of CESTAT and other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
