Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (8) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... forehand. Such fact is evident from the SCN, wherein the duty demand has been computed based on the records maintained by the appellant. In view of the fact that the activities of the appellant regarding taking of cenvat credit on the disputed goods and use of the same for manufacture of the capital goods within the factory was known to the department way back in 2002, the show cause notice ought to have been issued within one year from the relevant date (i.e. taking of credit and furnishing of information by way of filing the ER-I return). Since the show cause notice has been issued in 2008, covering the period from June, 2002 to January, 2006, and no specific findings have been recorded regarding the involvement of the appellant in an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... edit of Central Excise Duty paid on the structural steel items, namely, MS beams, channels, angles, flats, Plates, joist etc., treating the same as input for manufacture of plant and machinery installed within the factory. Cenvat credit taken on the said goods had been denied by the Central Excise Department on the ground that the said goods cannot be considered as input, since were used in fabrication of the supporting structure of the capital goods, which cannot be considered as capital goods as such. The show cause proceedings initiated by the Central Excise Department culminated in the adjudication order, wherein the duty demand attributable to the structural steel items had been denied to the appellant. Appeal filed against the said ad .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Belapur reported in 2014 (313) ELT 426 (Tri.Mum.) 3. CCE, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Spinning Mills ltd. reported in 2010 (255) ELT 481 (SC) 4. CCE, Vishakapatanam-II vs. APP Mills Ltd. reported in 2011 TIOL 1378 - CESTAT-Bangalore 3. Ld. Advocate further submits that issuance of show cause notice beyond the period of one year from the relevant date is barred by limitation, in absence of any specific findings regarding the involvement of appellant in any fraudulent activities involving suppression of facts, wilful miss-tatement, collusion etc. with intent to evade payment of Central Excise duty. She also submits that there are divergent views by the judicial forum with regard to the eligibility of cenvat credit on the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t credit on the ground that the disputed goods are not conforming to the definition of inputs, as these are used for manufacture of the capital goods which are fixed to earth and are also exempted from payment of duty. I find that the receipt of the disputed goods, their duty paid nature and utilization within the factory premises have not been disputed by the authorities below. With regard to utilization of the disputed goods, I find from the certificate of the Chartered Engineer dated 02.03.2009 that the said goods have been utilized for manufacturing of capital goods only. I also find that upon verification of the detailed accounts maintained by the appellant, the Chartered Engineer has certified the quantum of usage of the disputed good .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ods for the purpose of taking cenvat credit, in view of conflicting decisions, are genuine and justified. In this connection, I find that this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of High-tech Equipments Spares Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has allowed the appeal on the ground of limitation by relying on several decisions of the Tribunal. The relevant paragraphs in the said decision are extracted herein below:- 2. Without going into the merits of the case I find that the demand in the present case is hopelessly barred by limitation having been issued beyond the normal period of limitation as provided under Section 11A. Admittedly, during the relevant period, there was decision in favour of the assessee laying down that such iron and steel items are en .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates