Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 1143 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

2016 (6) TMI 1143 - CESTAT HYDERABAD - TMI - Cement - cement clinker - CENVAT credit - structural items/TOR steel items like MS Angles, channels, plates, sheets, Rebar coils etc - capital goods - Held that: - reliance placed on the appellant's own case CCE, Tirunelveli Vs India Cements Ltd. [2006 (1) TMI 445 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], where it was held that credit availed on MS items used for fabrication/erection of capital goods is admissible. - Following the propositions laid in the appellants ow .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s, Plates etc.. 2. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of cement and cement clinker and are registered with Central Excise Department. They are availing Cenvat credit on capital goods and inputs. During the month of April, 2010 the appellants availed CENVAT credit of duty amounting to ₹ 38,231/-, being the balance 50% of the capital goods credit relating to the period 01-04-2009 to 06-07-2009, on structural items/TOR steel items like MS Angles, channels, plates, sheets, Rebar coils e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

herein, the same was upheld. Hence, the appellant is before the Tribunal. 3. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Shri G.Prahlad submitted that the period involved is prior to 07-07-2009, when the Explanation was introduced to Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In connection with expansion project, the appellants had to build and install a number of new machines, conveyors system, storage silos, and all necessary capital goods. Adverting to para 10 of the impugned order, he urge .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ounsel pointed out that all invoices were produced to establish the details and quantity of subject items used. That there is no specific column in ER-1 returns to declare details of usage of each item. That appellants have furnished copies of purchase orders, statement showing exact use of items along with issue slips and purchase requisites. That these would be sufficient evidence to show that subject items were used for capital goods. He pleaded that the appeal may be allowed. 4. Refuting the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

duced on 07-07-2009 has retrospective effect. Therefore, though the period in the present case is 01-04-2009 to 06-07-2009, the credit is not admissible. 5. I have heard the rival submissions. It is correct that in para 10 of the impugned order the Commissioner (appeals) has observed that credit is admissible that if subject structural items are used for fabrication of any capital goods/parts/accessories/components/and used in factory. In the reply to show cause notice, the appellants have 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

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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