TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 932X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roducts. The Department does not have any evidence to establish that subject items were used for any other purpose other than that as explained by the appellant. Credit has sought to be denied for the reasons that these goods do not fall under the definition of capital goods/inputs. It has to be seen that the process of manufacture cannot be carried out without the fabrication of these items like ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -cause notice was issued to the appellants for an amount of ₹ 16,90,732/- proposing to deny credit of these items and also for imposition of penalty. After adjudication, the original authority partially allowed the credit and disallowed credit of ₹ 6,35,930/- on MS items. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. On behalf of the appellant the learned counsel Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. vs. CCE ST, Jaipur-II [2016(332) ELT 759 (Tri.-Del.)] b. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ranchi [2010(252) ELT 92 (Tri.-Kolkata)] c. CCE, Chennai Vs. Kothari Sugars Chemicals Ltd [2003(55) RLT 453 (CEGAT - Chennai)] d. Jindal Vijayanagar Steels Ltd. Vs. CCE, Belgaum [2005(191) ELT 459 (Tri.-Bang.)] 3. On behalf of the respondent, learned AR submitted that the subject it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be seen that the process of manufacture cannot be carried out without the fabrication of these items like cable trays, pulp mill and storage racks etc as submitted by the appellant. Further the issue stands covered by the decisions relied on by the appellant and the decisions laid in the case of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [2010-TIOL-51-SC], India Cements Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai [201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
