TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovember 2008 whereas the show-cause notice has been issued on 6.4.2011 - no mala fide can be attributed to the assessee and longer period of limitation would not be available to the department. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/21192/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21928/2018 - Dated:- 20-12-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Raghavendra, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Gopa Kumar, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 27.3.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is passed without properly appreciating the facts and law. He further submitted that the subject inputs were used for fabrication of supporting components of capital goods i.e., conveyor belt system, kiln, pollution control equipment and storage tanks which are very much essential for fabrication of capital goods and hence, becomes part of the capital goods as defined under Rule 2(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR). He further submitted that the issue of availment of credit on various iron and steel items used as component for capital goods or structural support of capital goods is settled in favour of the assessee in the various decisions cited below: Suguna Metals Pvt. Ltd. VS. CCE, Hyderabad: 2016 (339) ELT 119 (Tri.-Hyd.) Metr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orting structure to machinery. Since the impugned items have been used for supporting structure of the machinery, therefore, in view of the ratio of the various decisions cited supra, the appellants are entitled to CENVAT credit on the same. Moreover, the entire demand is also barred by limitation because the period in dispute is June 2006 to November 2008 whereas the show-cause notice has been issued on 6.4.2011 and during the relevant period, there were conflicting decisions on the impugned items and in view of the decision in the case of Hi-Tech Power and Steel Ltd. cited supra, no mala fide can be attributed to the assessee and longer period of limitation would not be available to the department. In view of the above discussions, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
