9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and steel articles on the ground that the said goods cannot be considered as input for the purpose of manufacture of the final products. The matter was adjudicated vide order dated 26.09.2012, wherein the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed the demand for Rs. 2,51,920/- along with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/-. In appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 11.03.2014 has upheld the demand confirmed in the adjudication order. Hence this present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Sh. Vipin Upadhyay, the Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that the disputed goods have been used for fabrication, repair and maintenance of the capital goods installed in the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the appellant for repair, maintenance and fabrication of the machines/ machineries installed in the plant. The cenvat benefit has been denied on the sole ground that there is no record to show that the disputed goods have been used for manufacture of specific parts/ accessories of the capital goods. I find from the purchase requisition slips available in the file that the appellant had clearly mentioned the requirement of the disputed goods for the intended purpose i.e. for repair and maintenance of various machines, namely, kiln, Clinker stock pipes etc. Since the machines/ machineries where the disputed goods have been used are confirming to the classification of the goods under chapter 84 and 85 of the Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the facts of the present case inasmuch as the said judgment was delivered in context with the statutory provisions in vogue during the regime of modvat scheme. Since the present dispute is covered under the cenvat region and the definition of input is broad enough to cover within its ambit all the goods excepting the certain restricted items within its purview for the purpose of taking cenvat credit, denial of cenvat benefit will be against the legislative mandate behind the Cenvat scheme. Therefore, the judgment cited by the Ld. AR is distinguishable. 6. In view of above, I do not find any substance in the impinged order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, the same is set aside and the appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
