9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icles i.e., tippers under the understanding that they are eligible for such CENVAT credit as these tippers were used for rendering taxable output services. The lower authorities issued one show cause notice dated 13.03.2008 demanding the CENVAT credit availed during the period in question on these grounds. The appellant herein contested the show cause notice stating that since they are providing taxable output services they are entitled to take the CENVAT credit as the said vehicles i.e., tippers are used for movement of various materials during the course of rendering output services; the demand for a particular period April, 2006 to September, 2006 was contested on limitation. The adjudicating authority after considering the submissions m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of CENVAT credit and capital goods. He draws out attention to the show cause notice and submits that the demand of Rs. 1.96 crores is entire amount of 100% CENVAT credit on the capital goods, while appellant had availed only 50% credit, assuming that demand has to be raised on the appellant, it should be for this amount which is 50% of Rs. 1.96 crores. However, he submits that they are justified in availing such CENVAT credit, a submission totally unconsidered by the adjudicating authority in the impugned Order. He would submit that the penalties and the interest were by set aside. 4. Learned Departmental Representative relies upon the decision of the Tribunal on a similar set of facts, in the case of Ganta Ramanaiah Naidu [2010 (18) STR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Duty paid on tippers, compressors and other machineries of motor vehicles. The demand of Rs. 1,83,35,538/- for the period April, 2006 to September, 2006 is set aside as hit by limitation. (ii) As regards the demands raised for the CENVAT credit of Rs. 3,28,80,899/- as ineligible CENVAT credit of the Central Excise Duty paid on tippers, compressors, etc, we find that the adjudicating authority was correct in confirming the demands so raised. The judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Ganta Ramanaiah Naidu (supra) (wherein one of us, M.V. Ravindran was a member) has specifically held that CENVAT credit on such motor vehicles is excluded from the benefit of CENVAT credit as capital goods. Learned Counsel was not able to bring to our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. 6. Another point which was raised by the Learned Counsel was regarding the demand of interest. It is his submission that the entire amount of Rs. 3.28 crores was unutilized and was lying in credit and hence, no interest should be demanded. We are not in agreement with the contentions raised by the Learned Counsel. We find that the interest liability arises on the amount confirmed and upheld by us i.e., to the tune of Rs. 3,28,80,899/- and reject the prayers of appellant on interest issue. 7. Since the entire issue involved in this case is regarding the interpretation of eligibility to avail CENVAT credit on the tippers which are used for rendering output services, we hold that appellant herein could be under bona fide belief that they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
