TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty not imposable - E/466/2007-Mum - A/1649-1650/2007-WZB/C-IV/(SMB) - Dated:- 20-11-2007 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) Shri S.N. Prasad, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri Bharat Raichandani, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order].- This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order-in-appeal No. SVS/03/NGP-II/2007, dated 3-1-2007. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondent availed Cenvat credit during the period April-2002 to November-2002 on the duty paid plain plate., angles, channel, HR sheet chequered coil and welding electrodes. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent seeking to deny the Cenvat credit so availed on the ground that the said goods on which credit was av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. He submits that the items were used by the respondent as a supporting structures in their factory premises and such supporting structures, having no play in the manufacture of the final product, cannot be treated as capital goods and credit should not be allowed on such goods. It is his submission that the welding electrodes which were used by the respondent are in any case are not eligible for availment of benefit of the credit as has been held by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. 4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly come to the conclusion items are used by the respondent for manufacturing of capital goods which are further used by them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduced explanation to Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 that credit on the inputs which are used in the manufacture of final product cannot be denied. I find strong force in the arguments of the ld. counsel for the respondent that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the respondent by a series of judgments as quoted by him. The issue is no more res integra . As such, the challenge of the department against the impugned order which sets aside the demand of the duty of the credit availed on the inputs like plain angles, beams, channels, plates etc. is without any merits. The impugned order to the extent it holds the eligibility of availment of credit on the said inputs is correct and does not require any interference. 6. As regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
