TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... envat credit Rules, 2004 and no duty or credit is recoverable under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Interest - penalty - Held that: - no interest at appropriate rate is recoverable under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - the Appellant are not liable for penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for contravention of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/511/2011-EX[DB] - A/71986/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 26-9-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Shri Amit Awasthi, Advocate - for Appellant Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accessories/ components of capital goods. The items claimed to be accessories/ components of capital goods are S.No.-1) Electric Sub-station and metering switchyard, (2) HT Cable Support Structure. (4) Support Structure for CCM. (6) Apron. (8) Laddle operating festoon beam, (9) Support Structure. (11) Crane Gantry with Bus Bar. (12) Cable Tray/ Trench. (15) Support Structure for Gasifire, (16) Blower Foundation. (17) Charging Bucket. (19) Crane Gantry and Bus Bar. (24) Support Structure for continuous costing machine. (25) Support Structure for intermediate Mill. (26) Support Structure for 360mm Mill. (27) Support Structure for 460mm Mill. (31) Foundation Bolt etc. (33) Roller/ Charger table. (35) Pusher Platform. (36) Cable Tray/ Trench. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for contravention of Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 5. Based on the above facts Revenue issued with a SCN dated 11.03.2010 to the appellant. The appellant submitted their reply dated 28.05.2010 and oral submissions made at the time of personal hearing on 05.10.2010. The proposed demand was confirmed by the impugned order dated 23.11.2010 of the Commissioner. 6. The learned Counsel for appellant submits that their line of arguments in their other Appeal No.E/511/2011 along with the submissions rendered in written submissions given on 26.09.2017. Learned Counsel for the appellant relies on the ruling of this Tribunal in the case of M/s Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE reported at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singhal Enterprises (P) Ltd., v. CC CE, Raipu-2016-TIOL-2451-CESTAT-Del. 8.4 Coming to the next issue is the applicability of the judgment in the case of Vandana Global Ltd v. CCE Raipur, the same has been held to be no more a good law. This has been held in various subsequent judgments like Surya Alloys Industries Ltd. v. Union of India - 2014 (305) E.L.T. 47 (Cal.) at Parag-9 has held:- 9) The foundation of the order, passed by the Tribunal, is laid upon the judgment of the Larger Bench, rendered in the case of Vandana Global Limited (supra), which does not hold the field because of the subsequent judgment rendered by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal, in subsequent matters, has clearly indicated that the Larger Bench ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... July 2009. The Notification 16/2009-CE(NT) dated 07.07.2009 is not applicable in the instant case as the same is applicable only prospectively. In the case of Mundra Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd., 2015 (39) S.T.R. 726 (Guj.), it was held that the amendment made on 07.07.2009 cannot be held to be clarificatory and as such would be applicable only prospectively. 8.6 Therefore, as far as the contentions raised by the Revenue for the denial of credit are concerned the same are not tenable as far as the interpretation of the law is concerned. It is not the case of the department that inputs on which the credit has been availed were not essentially required for manufacturing activity of the Appellant. The Appellant in this regard hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first appellate authority. The issue on admissibilit o such items was finally decided by the Larger Bench in the case of M/s. Vandana Global Limited v. CCE, Raipur (supra). In the realm of conflicting interpretations given by various benches of CESTAT and other courts, it cannot be held that there was any suppression/ misstatement on the part of the appellant with intention to evade any duty. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, extended period cannot be invoked. Without going into the merits of the case, the appeal of the appellant is required to be allowed on time bar alone as demand show cause notice had been issued beyond the period of one year from the date of taking Cenvat Credit. (Emphasis Supplied) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
