TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied on the ground that the goods were used in the construction. However, in the impugned order though it was admitted that the goods were used in fabrication of machinery but the same was denied on the ground that these machineries are embedded to earth. The Adjudicating Authority has not appreciated in proper perspective, regarding the use of the goods in the machineries equipments fabricated by the appellant. After passing of the adjudication order much water has flown on this issue and various judgments were passed by various forums. Therefore, the entire matter needs reconsideration in the light of the facts of the present case vis-a-vis the law in terms in various judgments of the High Courts/ Tribunals. All the issues are kept open ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order have not provided on any basis for such contrary allegation/finding. It is now settled law that Cenvat credit is eligible on iron, steel items used in the fabrication of plant and machinery in the factory irrespective of whether the plant and machinery is embedded to earth. 2.1 He submits that the chartered engineer s Certificate dated 25.06.2013 provides the list of items which have been fabricated using the disputed iron steel items on which credit was availed. These items include belt conveyors, cable gallery, cement mill hopper, clinker cooler, compressor house, tower crane, raw materials hopper, boiler and other machinery which is essential for manufacturing activity in the plant of the appellant. 2.2 He also refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present case as the entire demand is beyond the normal period of limitation. It is an admitted fact in the show cause notice that the demand arises from the scrutiny of ER-1 returns filed by appellant for the month of March 2010. A majority of credit sought to be denied was availed prior to the amended provisions. Thus the actions of the appellant are completely bonafide in nature and there is no question of any fraud suppression or willful mis-statement in the facts of the present case. In support of his above submissions on merit as well as time bar, he placed reliance on the following judgments: HIL Limited Vs CCE 2023 (4) TMI 428-CESTAT Ahmedabad CCE ST, Rajkot v. Sanghi Industries Ltd. 2022 (5) TMI 475 (Tri. Ahm) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Ex., Banglore-II 2010 (249) ELT. 394 (Tri-Bang) Commissioner of Central Excise, Banglore-II Vs SLR Steel Ltd. 2012 (280) E.LT. 176 (Kar.) Ambuja Cement Ltd. Vs Commissioner CE ST (LTU) Mumbai Final Order dated. 03/03/2022 Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax Final Order dated. 01/12/2021 Ambuja Cements Ltd Vs Commissioner CE ST (LTU) Mumbai Final Order dated 21/02/2022 Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Lucknow v. Ambuja Cement Ltd. 2018 (8) GSTL 161 (All) 3. Shri Tara Prakash, Learned Deputy Commissioner (AR), appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides and perusal of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
