Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s MSP Steel & Power Ltd. Versus C.C.E. & ST Raipur

2015 (4) TMI 1021 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Waiver of pre deposit - CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - whether the appellant would be eligible for cenvat credit in respect of MS angles, channels, bars etc., which had been taken by them during the period from September 2010 to February 2012 - Held that:- There is no evidence that the fabrication of the capital goods had been declared by them in the ER-1 returns or by any other specific information in this regard given by the appellant. The steel items, in question, - MS angles, channels, bars .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

verall facts and circumstances of the case and also the plea of financial hardship pleaded by the appellant, we direct the appellant to deposit an amount of ₹ 40 lakh within a period of 8 weeks. On deposit of this amount within the stipulated time period, the requirement of pre-deposit of balance amount of cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty would stand waived and recovery thereof is stayed - Partial stay granted. - Excise Stay No. E/52522/2014 & Excise Appeal No. E/52027/2014 -Ex[D .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rom September 2010 to February 2012. During this period the appellant took cenvat credit of ₹ 2,76,52,972/- in respect of MS angles, channels, TMT Bars etc. The department being of the view that these items are not eligible for cenvat credit either as inputs or as capital goods issued a SCN for recovery of Cenvat credit along with interest and imposition of penalty on them under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 1.2 The SC was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide Order-in-original d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

led along with stay application. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Sh. KK Anand, the Ld. Advocate the Ld. counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the steel items, in question, had been used for fabrication of various items of capital goods, for use within the factory, that the items of capital goods fabricated are air pollution control equipment, Air and water cooling/circulation/Distributor plant, material handling/ transferring and feeding equipment, kilns, chimneys etc, all of which are covered und .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rtified certificate and subsequently on the instructions of the range superintendent had also furnished a certificate given by a Chartered Engineer, that the Commissioner has not considered the appellants plea with regard to use of the goods and hence, the impugned order is not correct. Sh. Anand, therefore, pleaded for waiver from the requirement of pre-deposit of the cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty for hearing of their appeal and stay on its recovery till disposal of the appeal. 4. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s of the various items of the Capital goods claimed to have been fabricated have not been enclosed, that in any case, the chartered engineer is a civil engineer who was not competent to certify the user of the goods, that in any case, the certificate has been produced after 2 years, and hence the same lacks credibility, that the fabrication of capital goods was not declared in the ER-1 returns and no specific intimation was given to the Department in this regard and hence, the appellant have not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

avour. He also cited the judgment of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Upper Ganges Sugar & Industries Ltd vs CCE Meerut-II reported in 2014 (1) ECS (27) (HC-All) and also the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madras cements Ltd. vs CCE reported in 2010 (254) ELT 3 (SC). 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The only point of dispute in this case is as to whether the appellant would be eligible for cenvat credit in respect of MS .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version