9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... April 2009 to December 2009, appellants availed CENVAT credit of duty paid on MS plates, MS angles, MS channels, MS sheets to the tune of Rs. 4,66,155/- under the category of capital goods. A show-cause notice dt. 13/04/2015 was issued to the appellant alleging that the MS items do not fall under the category of capital goods and therefore proposing to recover the credit along with interest and also proposing for imposition of penalty. The appellant defended the notice by issuing a reply along with details of use of the MS items. After adjudication, the original adjudicating authority allowed credit of Rs. 1,84,155/-. The appellant filed appeal the Commissioner(AppeaIs) who upheld the disallowance of credit but reduced penalty Rs. 2,82,000/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the MS items were used. In absence of such evidence, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. He reiterated the findings in the impugned order and submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has analysed the contentions raised by the appellant and reduced the penalty which is just and reasonable. 4. I have heard both sides and perused records. The issue for consideration is whether the appellant is eligible for credit availed on MS items which according to the appellant were used for fabrication of parts/accessories/components of capital goods and also for repair and maintenance of various machinery and equipment. The appellant has filed detailed reply to the show-cause notice. Along with that replay, he has submitted an anne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stands settled by the decisions relied upon by the appellant as well as by the decisions passed by the Tribunal in the following cases:- a. CCE&ST, Tirupati vs. Maishreni Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. [Final order No.A/30439/2016 dt. 05/05/2016] b. Madras Cements Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad [2016(336) ELT 175 (Tri. Hyde.)] c. India Cements Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai [2015(321) ELT 209 (Mad.)] d. CCE&ST, Hyderabad-III vs. Tanmayi Ispat Pvt. Ltd. [Final Order No A/30038/16 cit. 1 1/01/2016] e. Devashree Ispat Pvt. Ltd. vs. Hyderabad-III [Final Order No.A/30071/16 dt. 20/01/2016] f. CCE&Cus, Vizag-l Vs. Rastriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. [201 1 (267) ELT 311 (AP)] 5. Following the same, I hold that the appellant is eligible for the credit. The impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
