Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Hissar Pipes Pvt. Ltd., Vishnu Goyal, Director Versus CCE, Rohtak

2017 (7) TMI 474 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

CENVAT credit - inputs - angles - plates - MS angles - MS joists/shapes/sections - channels - whether the goods have been used as inputs for manufacturing capital goods in the factory? - Held that: - At the time of visit of the officers, the director of the company had clearly admitted that they had wrongly taken the credit on these items and therefore, reversed the same - The appellants have admitted during the hearing that they had not declared anywhere that the capital goods were captively ma .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

teel items used at the time of commissioning of new plant for production of the capital goods are not eligible for credit as inputs and that ER-1 returns did not declare their use in the manufacture of capital goods. - Penalty - Held that: - Since the credit was irregularly taken and there is no production of capital goods under Notification No.67/95 dt.16.3.1995 and no declaration was made by the appellant in the ER-1, the penalty has been correctly imposed on the appellant. - Appeal d .....

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 and channels treating them as their inputs. On the basis of intelligence, the Departmental officers visited the appellants and examined the records of their inputs and found that the appellant had taken Cenvat credit on angles, plates, MS angles, MS joists/shapes/sections and channels treating them as their inputs for the period March, 2006 to August, 2006. The statement of the director (Appellant No. 2) was recorded in which he admitted that the Cenvat credit had been taken wrongly and utiliz .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd rejected the appeal of the appellant. Aggrieved from the same, the appellant have come before this Tribunal. 2. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the impugned goods were used captively for manufacture of the capital goods in their factory. The goods were required as supporting structure for EOT crane, zinc tank and MS bars. He referred to the Chartered Engineers certificate submitted before the lower authority and submitted that the Chartered Engineer has given utilization of va .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ase laws: (i) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd Vs.CCE, Delhi-III-2016 (344) ELT 1125 (Tri.-CHD) (ii) Patiala Distillers & Manufacturers Ltd-2016 (343) ELT 801 (Tri.CHD) (iii) Jawahar Mills Ltd-2001 (132) ELT 3 (SC) (iv) Associated Cement Co.Ltd.-2016 (341) EL& 175 (Chhattisgarh) (v) National C-operative Sugar Mills Limited-2016 (344) ELT 832 (Mad.) 2.1. Learned Advocate also relied on another order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dt.27.10.2011 in which the benefit of input credit on plates and shee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ital goods is impossible. When the items claimed as capital goods were already installed at the time of statement, the director made no reference to the said items in his statement and admitted the correct position. He relied on the following case laws: (a) Bajaj Hindustan Ltd Vs. CCE, Meerut-2012 (284) ELT 565 (Tri.Del.) (b) Bajaj Hindustan Ltd Vs.Union of India-2013 (295) ELT 20 (All.) 4. Heard the rival submissions and examined the records. 5. I find that the impugned goods do not qualify as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

006. As the EOT crane, zinc tank and MS bars are specific items and would have been Commissioned much before the date of the visit of the officers on 31.07.2007, a date much after the receipt of the impugned goods. As such, their usage if it was actually used in the specific items would been known to appellant on 31.07.2007. But no such reference was made in Directors statement. The appellants have admitted during the hearing that they had not declared anywhere that the capital goods were captiv .....

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 which are not covered under the definition of the capital goods. The case laws relied on by the learned Counsel pertain to the welding electrodes as inputs for repair and maintenance (National Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) and inputs used for fabrication of the capital goods used for R&D purposes (Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.) (supra) and hence are not applicable. Other case law of Patiala Distillers & Manufacturers Limited (supra) is about the credit on capital goods used for proc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Commissioner (Appeals) also does not come to their help because in that case, plates and sheets were used for the storage tank within the factory. Since the storage tank is specifically mentioned in the definition of the capital goods, the benefit was allowed to items. Besides, in the said order, welding electrodes for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery are not relevant to the present case. I find that the case law produced by the learned AR is directly applicable to this case as in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version