TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue referred to larger Bench was also not the same which is involved in the present case. - there is no irregularity or error in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. - 2924 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 2-7-2009 - Honble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J S hri M. P. Devnath, Advocate with Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Bhishma Kinger, Standing Counsel for the Union of India / respondents. JUDGMENT With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20.05.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Customs, Excises Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, i.e. Stay Order No. 425/2009-EX, in Stay Application No. E/S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overed under the provisions of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11A of the Central Excise Act,1944 (for short 'the Act, 1944'), (ii) penalty should not be imposed upon them under the provisions of Rule 15 of the Rules, 2004 for violation of Rule 2 and 3 of the Rules, 2004, and (iii) interest should not be charged and recovered from them from the relevant date at appropriate rate in terms of Rule 14 of the Rules, 2004. 3. The petitioner, on 23.04.2008 (Annexure P/5) filed a detailed reply to the show-cause-notice dated 31.01.2008 issued by the respondent No. 2 stating therein that the inputs delivered were used only for the purpose of fabrication of eligible capital goods, hence, the petitioner was entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicating authority on the said aspect against the appellant, we do not find any case of hardship being made out by the appellant in case of insistence for deposit of the amount of duty under the impugned order and interest thereon. Besides, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, interest of the Revenue also would be safeguarded if the pre-deposit insisted upon in that regard. 12. We, however, would exercise our discretion for not insisting for deposit of the penalty amount which is ordered to be paid in the impugned order, more particularly, in view of the order passed in Vandana Global Ltd. (Supra). 13. Needless to say that, all the observations made hereinabove are in relation to the application for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redit/Cenvat Credit, and other issues. 7. Per contra, Shri Kinger, learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the submission of the petitioner and argues in support of the order dated 20.05.2009 (Annexure P/1), impugned herein. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the issue referred to the larger Bench in Vandana Global (supra) was as under: "a. Whether the term "capital goods" can include plant, structures embedded to earth? b. Whether the goods like angles, joists, beam, channels, bars, flats which go into fabrication of such structures can be treated as 'inputs' in relation to their final products as inputs for capital goods, or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rinciples to the facts of the case, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for stay of the order impugned. Even the issue referred to larger Bench was also not the same which is involved in the present case. There is no quarrel on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other courts with regard to reference of the dispute to the larger Bench. However, keeping in view the facts involved in the case, I am of the view that there is no irregularity or error in the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. 12. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any irregularity or error in the impugned order dated 20.05.2009 (Annexure P/1) warranting interference. 13. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
