TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER The above appeal is filed against the disallowance of credit of duty paid on MS items. 2. The appellants are manufacturers of Bulk Drugs and Intermediaries and are registered with the Central Excise Department. There are availing facility of CENVAT credit on capital goods and inputs. On verification of records it was observed that during the period April, 2005 to October, 2008, the appellants availed CENVAT credit to the tune of ₹ 14,85,488/- on MS Angles, Channels, Aluminium Rolls, HR Coils etc., which is inadmissible. A Show Cause Notice was issued proposing to recover the amount along with interest and also proposing to impose penalty. After due process of law, the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 07.07.2009. The appellant has furnished a Chartered Engineers Certificate which gives the details of the use of MS items and the support structures for the capital goods. The Ld. Counsel argued that the Show Cause Notice was issued invoking the extended period of limitation relying upon the decision on Vandana Global Ltd., case. The allegation is that when the support structures are fixed to earth, they become immovable property, and therefore credit is not admissible. The appellants have disclosed the credit availed in the ER-I returns filed the regularly. There is absolutely no evidence to establish any willful suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. 6. On behalf of the department, the Ld. AR, has pointed out tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d out by the Ld Counsel for appellant in the judgment of Mundra Ports SEZ Ltd., (supra) the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has observed that the said amendment does not have a retrospective application. Further in the case of A.P.P Ltd., [2013 (291) ELT 585 (Tri-Bang)] the Tribunal has observed that the judgment rendered in the case of Rajastan Spinning and Weaving Mills was after the decision rendered in the case of Vandana Global Ltd., case and therefore the judgment rendered in the case of Vandana Global Ltd., is not a good law. The appellant has submitted that the MS items were used for fabrication of supporting structures for Reactors. It is also not disputed that without such support structures the reactors cannot be erected and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
