TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccepted. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasoning given by the learned Commissioner (A), I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders and I therefore uphold the same by dismissing all the four appeals of the appellants. - E/28350 to 28353/2013-SM - Final Order No. 20123 – 20126 / 2017 - Dated:- 24-1-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Mr. Narayana.M.A. Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pakshi Rajan, AR ORDER Per S. S. Garg The appellants have filed four appeals against the two impugned orders passed in Order-in-Appeal No.556 557 dated 25.10.2013 and Order-in-Appeal No.456 457/2013 dated 3.9.2012, vide which the Commissioner (A) has rejected the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture of final products. The appellant filed reply to the show-cause notices claiming that the said goods are in fact used as packing material and hence company was eligible for the credit of duty paid on the said goods. Thereafter the Assistant Commissioner passed orders-in-original denying the credit and ordered for recovery of the same along with interest and also imposed penalty. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant filed four appeals before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) vide two impugned orders dated 25.10.2013 and 3.9.2013 dismissed all the four appeals and hence, the present appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t have wrongly availed the CENVAT credit on capital goods. Here it is relevant to reproduce the observation of the learned Commissioner (A) in para 8 and 9 of his finding which is reproduced here: 8. I have carefully gone through the records of the case, the grounds of appeal and the submissions made at the time of personal hearing. I find that the issue pertains to availment of Capital Goods credit on two types of items viz.,(i) Vertical Storage Tanks and (ii) Portable Cryogenic Vessels. This issue has already been decided by me, in respect of the same Appellant but for the earlier period, vide Order-in-Appeal nos.456-457/2013 dt.03.9.2013. I find that the issues involved are similar but the present demands are for the subsequent peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and in respect of which duty was demanded subsequently and paid. This is not at all the issue involved herein. Hence, the credit availed by them on Vertical Storage Tanks is irregular. 9. As regards the credit availed on Portable Cryogenic Vessels, I find that the said Vessels are used for supply/ transportation of gases in liquid form and not for packing. Hence, the argument of the Appellants, that they were packing materials, cannot be accepted. Further, the goods are in the nature of durable and returnable containers. Containers are different from packing material as envisaged in the rule 2(k)(i) of CCR as it existed during, the relevant period upto 31.03.2011. Hence, they cannot be considered as inputs as argued by the Appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
