Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s N.R. Ispat and Power Pvt. Ltd. Versus CCE Chhattisgarh

CENVAT credit disallowed - steel items used for the supporting structures - Held that:- As find that the Supdt. Central Excise vide letter dated 20.12.2014 has taken note of the intimation of the appellant that it had not availed Cenvat credit on 255.300 MT of steel items used for the supporting structures as it purchased the same under non-cenvatable documents. The Supdt., Central Excise has not disputed this fact. The adjudicating authority has stated that in the absence of any supporting docu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot disputed the same. In addition Chartered Engineer's certificate given also certifies that Cenvat credit on 255.300 MTs of steel was not taken. Therefore the demand relating to this quantum of steel which works out to ₹ 8,01,724/- is not sustainable.

Regarding 131.930 MTs of steel items eg. beams, joists, channels, angles, flat etc. used for supporting structures, the appellant is only claiming the benefit on the ground of time bar and not on merit. There is no confusion or am .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt regarding bonafide belief that credit on 131.930 MT was admissible is untenable. The appellant has conceded inadmissibility of Cenvat credit of ₹ 48,000/- As regards the welding electrodes it has been held by CESTAT in the case of Vikram Cement Vs. CCE, Indore (2009 (7)217 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ) that credit on welding electrodes is not available when used for repair. The appellant has only stated that some of these electrodes may have been used for manufacturing capital goods but has con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to be recovered along with interest; equal mandatory penalty was also imposed. 2. The break up of the impugned Cenvat credit is as below: S. No. Description of head of Cenvat credit availed Amount (Rs.) 1. Supporting structures 11,74,206/- 2. Procurement of supporting structures 48,000/- 3. Welding electrodes 28,252/- Total 12,50,458/- 2. The appellant has contended that: (i) amount of ₹ 11,74,206/- appearing in the above table is Cenvat credit on 255.300 MT and 131.930 MT of steel which .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

relevant period and therefore extended period cannot be invoked which will make the demand of Cenvat credit relating thereto time-barred. Regarding welding electrodes, ld. Advocate for the appellant stated that some of the welding electrodes have been used for manufacture of capital goods also although he admitted that he has no evidence to that effect. He conceded the component of ₹ 48,000/- mentioned in the above table. The ld. Advocate for the appellant also pleaded that option to pay r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the assessee has paid the duty sought to be evaded as also the interest payable thereon under Section 11AB before the passing of the adjudication order. Admittedly, the assessee has not paid 25% of the penalty imposed under Section 11AC within thirty days from the date of the communication of the order of Central Excise Officer determining the duty sought to be evaded under Section 11A(2) of the Act which is the mandatory requirement under Section 11AC. Instead of paying 25% of the penalty .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

steel items used for the supporting structures as it purchased the same under non-cenvatable documents. The Supdt., Central Excise has not disputed this fact. The adjudicating authority has stated that in the absence of any supporting documents it cannot be ascertained whether the appellant had availed Cenvat credit on 255.300 steel or not. I do not find the said reasoning sufficient to "disallow" credit in relation to 255.300 MTs of steel particularly when the appellant categorically .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rks out to ₹ 8,01,724/- is not sustainable. However, regarding 131.930 MTs of steel items eg. beams, joists, channels, angles, flat etc. used for supporting structures, the appellant is only claiming the benefit on the ground of time bar and not on merit. There is no confusion or ambiguity that steel used for supporting structures would neither fall under the category of "capital goods" nor inputs as defined under Cenvat Credit Rules and therefore the credit thereon is not admiss .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

has been held by CESTAT in the case of Vikram Cement Vs. CCE, Indore - 2009 (242) ELT 545 (T) that credit on welding electrodes is not available when used for repair. The appellant has only stated that some of these electrodes may have been used for manufacturing capital goods but has conceded that it has no evidence thereof. Therefore the demand relating to welding electrodes is also sustainable. However, I find that Gujarat High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Ratnamani Metals and Tubes Ltd. - 20 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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