TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellant has disclosed the credit availed on MS items in the ER-1 returns filed by them. Such ER-1 return is the basis for issuance of show cause notice - extended period not invoked. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/25425/2013 - 30491/2017 - Dated:- 30-3-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member (Judicial) Shri Y. Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for the appellant Shri P.S. Reddy, Asst. Commissioner/AR for the respondent ORDER [ Order Per: Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] 1. The above appeal is filed against disallowance of credit on M.S. items under the category of capital goods. 2. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of Ethanol, Industrial Alcohol and potable alcohol. They are also clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MS items came to be introduced in the definition of inputs . The Ld. Counsel had also argued on the grounds of limitation. He submitted that the show cause notice is relied upon the ER-1 returns filed by the appellants. The appellant had disclosed the details of credit availed in the ER-I returns, therefore the show cause notice issued invoking extended period of limitation by alleging suppression of facts is without any basis. That the department has issued show cause notice disallowing credit on MS items, merely relying upon the judgement in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur [2010(253)E.L.T.440(Tri.-LB). The issue whether M.S. items used for fabrication of capital goods as well as fabrication of support structures, has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... milling section for support of slurry tank etc. As rightly pointed out by Ld. Counsel for appellant, the period involved is prior to 07.07.2009 on which date, the explanation in the definition of input was introduced restricting the use of M.S. items. The Tribunal in the cases relied upon by the appellant had occasion to discuss the eligibility of credit on MS Items used for support structures of capital goods. In the case of M/s Ultra Tech Cement, the Tribunal held as under: The major part of the credit falls prior to 07.07.2009 and the department has relied upon the decision laid in M/s Vandana Global Ltd., case to hold that the credit is not eligible. On perusal of the records it is seen that the subject items are used for fabricat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that credit is admissible on MS items used for erection of capital goods when without such structural, the machinery could not be erected or put to use. The said case was referred by Calcutta High Court in Surya Alloy Industries Ltd. Vs UOI [2014(305)ELT 47(Cal)]. Again in Mundra Ports SEZ Ltd Vs CCE reported in 2015-TIOL-1288-HC-Ahd-ST, the Hon ble Court opined that the amendment to Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 is prospective only. The learned counsel for appellant relied on the judgements laid in appellants own case CCE, Tirunelveli Vs India Cements Ltd. [2006(203)ELT-143(Tri-Chennai)], India Cements Ltd. Vs Cestat, Chennai [2015(321)ELT 209 (Mad) = 2015-TIOL-650-HC-MAD-CX and CCE ST Vs India Cements Ltd. [2014(310)ELT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
