New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (3) TMI 522 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (3) TMI 522 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - 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 state .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ellant's submission in this regard and has not 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 a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ironment. Thus the contention of the appellant 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) TMI 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of ₹ 12,50,458/- was disallowed and ordered 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 cr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as contended that there was confusion during the 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 fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1AC is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute 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 Se .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t 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 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 ste .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

demand relating to this quantum of steel which works 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 Rul .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7; 48,000/- As regards the welding electrodes it 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 cas .....

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