9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1092 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - iron and steel products - Held that - I find from the impugned order that the Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded on the basis of evidence namely, Technical write-up of goods manufactured by the Respondent. It is stated that the disputed inputs were used in the manufacture of components, parts of Over Head Cranes (EOT), Sleeper Moulds, Furnace, Cooling Tower etc. The inputs in question have been used as capital goods, formed an integral part of the machine or machinery - On perusal of the grounds of appeal of the Revenue, I find that they have not disputed the evidences relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), in arriving at the conclusion that the Respondent shall be eligible for cenvat credit on the disputed goods - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Appeal against impugned order disallowing cenvat credit on iron and steel products. Interpretation of evidence and case laws supporting the eligibility for cenvat credit. Analysis: The appeal was filed by Revenue against an order disallowing cenvat credit on iron and steel products availed by the Respondent. The adjudicating authority had disallowed the credit, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this decision. Revenue argued that the inputs were used for construction of permanent structures in the factory. However, the Commissioner relied on evidence, specifically a technical write-up of goods manufactured by the Respondent, showing that the disputed inputs were used in the manufacture of various components and machinery. The Advocate for the Respondent cited several case laws to support their position, establishing that the inputs were integral parts of machinery. Upon review, the Tribunal found that Revenue did not dispute the evidences considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) in determining the eligibility of the Respondent for cenvat credit. As a result, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification to interfere with the decision of the Commissioner. Consequently, the appeal filed by Revenue was dismissed, upholding the order in favor of the Respondent. The operative part of the judgment was pronounced in the Open Court by the Member (Judicial) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, Mr. S.K. Mohanty.
|
