TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is also noted that there was a dispute on the eligibility of the Cenvat Credit on these items which were referred to the Larger Bench of the Tribunal for decision. In such situation, the findings of the lower authorities that there was a suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty cannot be accepted. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/75582/2015 - FO/75235/2018 - Dated:- 9-2-2018 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) Shri Vikash Agarwal, CA for the Appellant (s) Sri K. Choudhari, Suptd.(AR) for the Respondent (s) ORDER Per Shri P.K. Choudhary 1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of Paper and Paper Boar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T 421 (Tri-Del) dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and held that items of articles of Iron Steel used for repairing, maintenance of Plant Machinery are eligible for Cenvat Credit. In the case of Birla Corporation Limited Vs. CCE - Jaipur-II, 2012(276) ELT 376 (Tri-Dei.) held that MS Plate, Beams, Angles, Channels etc. used for repairing and maintenance are eligible for Cenvat Credit. 5. The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that they have utilized the said materials for construction purposes is without any basis. Regarding limitation it is observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the appellant did not disclose the entire facts and suppressed the facts from the department with intent to evade payment of Central Excise d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Accra Pac (India) Pvt. Ltd. [2008(229) ELT 473 (G.O.I)] j) Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Collector of C.Ex., Madras [1994 (74) ELT 9 (S.C.) k) Padmini Products vs. Collector of C.Ex. [1989 (43) ELT 195(S.C.)] l) Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Commr. Of C.Ex., Noida [2009(238) ELT 180 (Tri.-Del.) m) Commr. Of C.E-x., Pune vs. Telco Ltd. [2006(196) ELT 308 (Tri-Mumbai)] n) Arihant Arts vs. Commr. Of C.Ex, Mumbai [2004(173) ELT 194(Tri.-Mumbai)] o) Hi Line Pens Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. Of C.Ex, Delhi-I [2003(158) ELT 168 (Tri. Del.)] 7. In view of the above discussion, and the cited decisions, the impugned Order is set aside. 8. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. (Operative part of the order already pronounced in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
