TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d:- 21-11-2017 - Mr. M. V. Ravindran., Member (Judicial) Shri Arun Kumar, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Appellant. Shri Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per: M. V. Ravindran] This application is filed by the Revenue for condonation of delay in filing the supplementary appeals. Since this application No.E/COD/30581/2017 is for condoning the delay is supplementary appeal, the main appeal being filed in time, I condone the delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue. 2. By this common order, I propose to dispose of appeal No.E/31077/2017 and E/30252/2017. These two appeals are filed by the Revenue against the common Order-in-Appeal No.VIZ-EXCUS-001 APP-71-72-16-17 dated 29.11.2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pute from either parties to this extent, I do not find any valid reason to differ to the decision of lower authority. Hence, I concur with his findings and hold that appellants are eligible to avail CENVAT credit on Pig Moulds as capital goods and Lancer Pipes under Inputs as defined under Rule 2(a) / 2(k) of CCR, 2004. 8. In respect of the goods viz MS Plates, Channels, MS Rounds, TMT Bars, Lancing Pipes etc, while the credit has been availed under the category capital goods by restricting the quantum to 50%, the notice proposes denial both under 'inputs' and 'capital goods'. I find that the lower authority in para 12 and para 13 of his findings of the impugned order merely assessed the admissibility under 'ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failed the definition under Rule 2(a) of the CCR, 2004, it merited examination under Rule 2(k) ibidem. Based on the contentions raised in reply to the notice as well as in grounds of appeal, the appellant s thrust is on admissibility under the category Inputs with a reference being drawn to the fact that they availed only 50 % credit when they were eligible for full credit on the impugned items as inputs. Therefore, there is force in the appellant's contention that their plea was unaddressed in adjudication. I find that lower authority had examined the notice proposals in terms of the admissibility under inputs and capital goods in isolation, restricting findings the category under which the credit was actually availed. For the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Machine, Chimney, Flux, Screening New PCM, and Flux crushing etc., was based on material - issue records to the department. In view of the above discussion I fund that the appellant is eligible for CENVAT credit on said items as inputs as per Rule 2(k) of CCR 2004. When once the demand is found unsustainable and was set aside the attendant interest and penalties imposed automatically becomes redundant. 5. It can be seen from the above reproduced findings this factual matrix is not contradicted in any form by the Revenue. The reliance placed by the First Appellate Authority on the decision and also CENVAT credit extended to the respondent indicates that the impugned order is correct and legal and does not require any interference. 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
