TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... US COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH-I [ 2013 (9) TMI 1089 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where reliance has been placed on Tribunal in the case of Mastech Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-I [2013 (5) TMI 241 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the steel items used for fabrication of Gantry rails on which the EOT cranes moves would be eligible for Cenvat credit - the denial of credit cannot be sustained and is set aside. Denial of credit of Rs.5,799/- for the financial year 2010-11, out of total credit taken amounting to Rs.10,907/- of Service Tax paid on the insurance premium of the motor vehicles owned by the Appellant and used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products for the year 2010-11 and 2011-12 - HELD THAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment, therefore, the allegation of suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty is not sustainable. Hence, the demand beyond the normal period of limitation is barred by limitation, and is accordingly set aside - thus, demand for the normal period along with interest is upheld. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The allegation of suppression with intent to evade payment of duty is not sustainable therefore penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is also set aside. Appeal disposed off. - Excise Appeal No.77920 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. 75535/2022 - Dated:- 27-9-2022 - SHRI P.K.CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri S.P.Siddhanta, Consultant for the Appellant (s) Shri J.Chattopadhyay, Authorized Represent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra), has held that the steel items used for fabrication of Gantry rails on which the EOT cranes moves would be eligible for Cenvat credit and similarly in the case of CCE, Raipur v. Ambuja Cement Eastern Ltd. (supra), it has been held that MS rails used for moving conveyor system are its accessories and are eligible for Cenvat credit. Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE, Tiruchirapalli v. India Cements Ltd. (supra) has held that the cranes with accessories and loaders are machinery and equipment used for production or processing of goods for manufacture of final products, and hence the same would be eligible for Cenvat credit. Since, without Gantry, the EOT crane cannot function the same has to be treated as part of the EOT crane ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Rules, 2004, it is submitted that they had filed an application on 28.05.2013 before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-VII Commissionerate wherein it was stated that they were facing problem in following Rule 16(1) and Rule 16(2) in the case of return of rejected goods which were received from the customers at their various depots. The main difficulty in complying with Rule 16(1) and Rule 16(2) in case of return of rejected goods by the customers was the controlled feature of the ERP system of SAP used by them. It was also stated in that letter that in the SAP ERP system, the credit note to the customer could only be issued from the location where the invoice was issued to such customer. Hence, in case of rejection of the Jok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the credit taken at the factory end by the credit notes and later on duty payment on clearance of said rejected goods at the depot end could not be ascertained. He held that the procedure followed by the assessee is contrary to Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 16 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. 6. On Appeal, the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) observed that the Appellant could not satisfy the Adjudicating authority by way of submitting the account of such cases of returned goods indicating the particulars of duty paid on clearance of the goods from the factory and the particulars of the same goods on their return to the depot. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) further observed that though the Appellant assessee claimed to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld.Counsel that the Show Cause Notice dated 21.01.2014 was served on them on 29.01.2014 demanding Central Excise duty for the period from 2009-10 to 2013-14 (upto September 2014) invoking the extended period is barred by limitation upto to November 2012. I find from the records that the Appellant had already approached the jurisdictional Commissioner vide their application dated 28.05.2013 sharing their concern regarding the difficulty they were facing in accounting the returned goods in the ERP SAP system and the Ld. Commissioner had acknowledged vide his letter dated 11.12.2013 appreciating their concern and guided them to observe certain conditions. It was further submitted that the Appellant all along followed those conditions whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
