9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant was issued with a show cause notice dated 11.11.2008, wherein it was alleged that the appellant had taken Cenvat credit on items like Angles, Channels, Joists, Shape & Sections, Mill Plate, PVC Pipes etc. and it was alleged that they were used for construction of building. It was stated in the said show cause notice that the appellant had reversed a total sum of Rs. 61,96,295/- vide various debit entries, the last one being on 05.02.2008. The contention in the said show cause notice is that the said items were not covered under Rule 2 (a) or 2 (k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and therefore they were not eligible for Cenvat credit. Therefore, appellants were called upon to show cause, as to why Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal authority has held that the certificate issued by the Chief Engineer was subsequent to issue of show cause notice and therefore the same was not admissible. Further, the original authority has held- all the goods in respect of which Cenvat credit was proposed to be denied were used in the construction of building . Further, he relying on the Final Order of this Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise reported at 2008 (203) ELT 169 (Tri.-Delhi) and confirmed the demand of Cenvat credit of Rs. 61,96,295/- and imposed equal penalty and appropriated already reversed amount of Rs. 62,10,397/-. In respect of loses of molasses he confirmed the demand of Rs. 14,102/-. Aggrieved by the said order, appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period of limitation with respect to the date of issue of impugned show cause notice. The Cenvat credit involved in the said items is Rs. 68,459/- and entire remaining part of Cenvat credit denied by the original authority was hit by limitation or was eligible as per definition of capital goods. He has further submitted that CBE&C Circular dated 06.02.1982 has clarified that loss up to 2% of molasses on storage is normal loss and it needs to condone. He has submitted that the loss in the case on hand was 0.23% and therefore confirmation of demand of Rs. 14,102/- does not sustain. 4. Heard the learned A.R. who has supported the impugned Order-in-Original. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of records including show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
