9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spute of CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,79,034/- which, according to the department, the appellant is not entitled to avail. The same is proposed to be recovered along with interest and penalty of equal amount is proposed under Sec.11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the following are the items on which they had availed CENVAT credit which is in dispute. (i) SS plates and corrugated sheets purchased to cover the silo to protect from rain and sun. (ii) Wire mesh used by them to apply ceramic labelling for screen making. Such screens are used for printing art work on glass bottles as per customer requirement. (iii) Welding electrodes used in repairing of plant and machinery. (iv) Other spares ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (b) of section 66E of the Act; (C) Capital goods, except when - (i) Used as parts or components in the manufacture of a final product; or (ii) The value of such capital goods is upto ten thousand rupees per piece; (D) Motor vehicles; (E) Any goods, such as food items, goods used in a guesthouse, residential colony, club or a recreation facility and clinical establishment, when such goods are used primarily for personal use or consumption of any employee; and (F) Any goods which have no relationship whatsoever with the manufacture of a final product." 6. He would submit that as long as the goods were used within the factory of the manufacture of the final products, they are entitled to CENVAT credit as inputs in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacturer and hence should be considered as inputs, he would submit that the exclusion clause of the definition in 'B' clearly excludes goods used for construction and laying of foundation or making structures. Therefore, no CENVAT credit is admissible on such goods. He reiterates the arguments in the impugned order and asserts that no CENVAT credit is admissible and the appeal may be dismissed. 8. I have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. It is not in dispute that all the goods in question were received in the factory after 01.04.2011 and that the term 'input' has been enlarged in CCR, 2004 on 01.04.2011 to include all goods used in the factory by the manufacturer of the final products. Once these goods are r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18252 17220 345 172 17737 March, 15 219 dt. 19.03.15 38 14 0 52 306 38 14 358 268 24 14 306 18043 9. Learned counsel would submit that they had not taken excess credit as alleged in Invoice No.1062 dated 13.03.2014. In fact, the credit was taken against three invoices viz., No. 1062 dt.13.3.14, No.874 dt.3.1.14 and No.875 dt.3.1.14. He would submit that this dispute arose as a result of audit objection and they had been asserting from the beginning before the audit party, before original authority and before the first appellate authority that the credit was taken on three invoices and not on one invoice, although they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
