TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by a letter dated 28.01.2009 was intimated to the authorities - Held that:- If assessee-appellant have contested the reversal of ₹ 33,46,191/- on limitation, they would have succeeded. The argument on limitation for seeking setting aside the interest and penalty is an accepted proposition - the interest demanded and confirmed by the lower authorities on an amount of ₹ 33,46,191/- is incorrect and not sustainable. CENVAT Credit on overhead cranes of ₹ 3,04,642/- during the period May 2007 to December 2008 - demand of Interest and penalty as well - Held that:- The inputs like M.S.Angles, channels, bars, concrete mixer etc. are eligible inputs for availment of CENVAT Credit - demand set aside - Interest liability and pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merits as well as on limitation; appellant-assessee had conceded the demand raised on CENVAT Credit on capital goods and inputs for an amount of ₹ 33,46,191/- and ₹ 1,04,428/- for the period May 2007 to December, 2008. The said demands were reversed by the appellant in December, 2008, January 2009, March 09 and the contest was only for interest liability and penalties. Appellantassessee contested the show-cause notice for denial of CENVAT Credit on GTA services. Limitation angle was also argued by the assessee before adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority after following due process of law, confirmed the entire demand with interest and imposed equivalent amount of penalty. On an appeal, first appellate authority has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd by a letter dated 28.01.2009 was intimated to the authorities. Despite such letter of 28.01.2009, for demand of CENVAT Credit of ₹ 33,46,191/- raised by show-cause notice dated 11.04.2012. I agree with the contention of learned C.A. that if assessee-appellant have contested the reversal of ₹ 33,46,191/- on limitation, they would have succeeded. I find that the argument on limitation for seeking setting aside the interest and penalty is an accepted proposition, as per the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Cus., Vadodara-II v. Gujarat Narmada Fertilizers Co. Ltd. in Tax appeal No. 56 of 2011 decided on 20.01.2012. Respectfully following the same, I hold that the intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod June 2008 to March 2009, I find that the issue needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority as it is the claim of the appellant-assessee before Tribunal as was also before the lower authorities that the said services were utilized for inward presentation of raw materials . I find that both the lower authorities have not considered this submission and confirmed the demands without any reasoning on the plea raised by appellant-assessee. In my considered view, if appellant is able to justify that the GTA services were used for transportation of any raw material, they are eligible to avail CENVAT Credit. On this point, since this issue needs to be appreciated on factual matrix, impugned order to that extent is modified and remanded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
