2015 (7) TMI 1195

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is directed against the impugned order dated 3.2.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Bhopal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel products falling under Chapter Heading 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant avails cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on the inputs, capital goods and service .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h the present appeal has been preferred before this Tribunal. 3. Sh. Prabhat Kumar, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the disputed goods are inputs, used for manufacture of capital goods of Chapter 84 of CETA within the factory. He further submits that the period involved in this case is from August 2007 to August 2009, whereas the SCN was issued on 23.01.2012. Thus accord .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Agro Extracts Ltd. 2008 (230) ELT 597 (P&H), Hira power and Steels Ltd. vs CCE Raipur Reported in 2008 (229) ELT 408 (Tri. Del). 4. Per contra, the Ld. Jt. CDR Sh. Devinder Singh appearing for the Revenue respondent submits that the appellant had not submitted the details of capital goods to which the disputed goods are used as components, spares/accessories. He further submits that since the ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as to whether the appellant is eligible to take cenvat credit on the disputed goods by treating the same as components accessories and parts of the capital goods falling under Chapter 84 of the CETA and whether the SCN issued in 2012 covering the period from August 2007 to August 2009 is barred by limitation of time. 7. I find from the available records, that the appellant had purchased the old a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e activities of the appellant were within the knowledge of Department, the SCN issued by invoking the extended period of limitation, in my opinion, is not maintainable. 8. In view of above, I do not find any merits in the impugned order. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed both on merits as well as on limitation. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
Case laws, Dec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X