Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (3) TMI 237

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pellant to avail cenvat credit, if these goods qualified the definition of being called as inputs. Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error while holding that there is no documentary evidence on record to indicate that the disputed items were, used in the manufacture of said capital goods - The total emphasis of appellant being confused about the impugned goods to be capital goods or inputs also is of no significance, because in either of the case appellant is entitled to avail the cenvat credit - Availing the said credit qua inputs at two different stage does not disentitle the appellant to avail the same. Time limitation - Held that:- The issue of availment of cenvat credit by the appellant on the impugned goods was in the no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r in appeal No.553 dated 30th January, 2018. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. Ms. Priyanka Goel, ld. Advocate for the appellant has submitted that all the articles on which the credit has been denied are in-fact used by the appellant for manufacture of their rolling machines, which are used in the manufacture of leaf springs assemblies, the final product of the appellant. It is impressed upon that these goods qualify to be called as input making appellant eligible to take the credit. She further has made emphasis upon the Chartered Engineers certificate of the appellant and that the same was produced before the adjudicating authorities below but the authorities have opted to be silent about the same. She further .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... emaining 50% in the subsequent financial year, which is applicable only when the goods whereupon the credit is availed are the capital goods. But it is appellant s own case that the impugned goods are not the capital goods but the inputs. Relief claimed on such a contradictory stand has rightly been declined by the Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal is accordingly, prayed to be dismissed. 4. After hearing both the parties, I observe and held as follows:- 4.1 From the scheme of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, it is apparent that a manufacturer is entitled to avail cenvat credit on the articles, which may either qualify to be called as capital goods as defined under section 2 (i) of CCR, 2004 or qualify as inputs defined under Section 2 (k) of C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed in manufacturing of said capital goods. 4.2 The ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the certificate of Chartered Engineer of the appellant, which is also the part of the record of this appeal. She in addition has submitted that the said certificate was produced before the adjudicating authorities below and has also impressed upon that the prior show cause notice on the same issue has been decided by the Department in favour of the appellant, wherein the said certificate was considered and that the said order was also brought to the notice of the Commissioner (Appeals) as found mentioned in last line of para 3 of the impugned order. In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... notice being barred by time, it is held that the previous order of the Department dated 24th March, 2017 is well on record. Perusal makes it clear that the similar issue and the similar demand was raised in that case vide show cause notice dated 23rd September, 2014. Not only this, the said show cause notice includes the part period of the present demand. Thus, it stands clear that the issue of availment of cenvat credit by the appellant on the impugned goods was in the notice of Department at least since 2014. The allegation of suppression, therefore, of fact cannot sustain against the appellant. The period involved in the present show cause notice is w.e.f. April 2013 to September, 2013 and the show cause notice is dated 22nd July, 2015. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates