TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l goods for the appellant does not arise. There is no composite contract in the construction of thermal power plant. This has no capital goods which were purchased by the appellant were used by the contractor in the construction of thermal power plant has no consequence to the appellants eligibility to the CENVAT Credit. As discussed earlier the impugned order proceeded on propositions not even contemplated in the demand. On Careful analysis of the facts relevant to the case, we find that the impugned order is not legally sustainable and accordingly set aside the same - Decided in favour of assessee. - Misc. Application No. E/Misc/53518/2014 In Appeal No. E/55509/2013-EX [DB] - Final Order No. 53666/2015 - Dated:- 12-11-2015 - Smt. Sule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the case was adjudicated by the Commissioner resulting in the impugned order. The Ld. Commissioner disallowed the credit and imposed equal amount of penalty on the appellant. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant is before us. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant, Shri B.L. Narsimhan, submitted that one of the main allegations in the show cause notice regarding the capital goods being ineligible for credit on the ground of their use in generation of electricity (exempted for duty) was considered and dropped by the original authority in his order. However, the original authority denied credit on entirely new set of propositions which were not at all alleged in the show cause notice. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the original authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red into by the appellant with the supplier of goods is to commission thermal power plant in their factory. Hence, he argued that the contracts are read together to arrive at the conclusion that the capital goods were in possession of the contractor and hence, the appellants were not eligible for credit on the same. 5. We have heard both the sides and examined the appeal in records. 6. The point for decision is the eligibility of the appellant for CENVAT Credit on various machinery and items purchased and used by them in setting up of thermal power plant in their factory. 7. We find that the impugned order disallowed the credit on the ground that the various contracts entered into by the appellant with the Chinese company for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e contract regarding transfer of title. The appellant will get the title when the goods delivered to them subject to payment of 80 % of contract price. The impugned order mentions about the contractor being responsible for due delivery, erection, installation and commissioning of these machinery in the execution of contract for thermal power plant. Accordingly, since the capital goods were alleged to be in the position of contractor, the CENVAT Credit and the same was denied to the appellant. This contention in the impugned order is ex-facie fallacious and without any merit. The appellants purchased capital goods, paid for the same and received under due documents in their premises. The supplier had another set of contracts for designing, e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
