9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 777 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - capital goods and inputs received in the mines - capital goods received and used in the captive power plant - Held that - In the appeal filed against said Order-in-Appeal dated 13.06.2011 in Appeal No. E/2544/2011 it has already been held that said Order-in-Appeal dated 13.06.2011 is not sustainable and has been set aside in earlier part of this order I, therefore, hold that neither Order-in-Original dated 02.11.2011 nor impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 30.03.2012 are sustainable. Further due to reasons stated above, Appeal No. E/1620/2012 has become infructuous. Therefore same is disposed as infructuous.
Issues:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on capital goods used in mines 2. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on capital goods used in a captive power plant 3. Validity of Order-in-Appeal remanding the matter back to the Original Authority 4. Sustainability of Order-in-Appeal and Order-in-Original in a subsequent appeal Analysis: Issue 1: Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on capital goods used in mines In Appeal No. E/2544/2011, the appellant, a manufacturer of Aluminium and its products, faced a show cause notice proposing denial of Cenvat Credit on capital goods used in mines. The Original Authority relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Vikram Cement's case, holding the credit admissible. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Original Order, remanding the matter. The Tribunal, after considering arguments, upheld the Original Order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellant. Issue 2: Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on capital goods used in a captive power plant The same Appeal No. E/2544/2011 also dealt with the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on capital goods used in a captive power plant, Renusagar Power Plant. The appellant cited a Tribunal decision supporting their claim. The Tribunal, agreeing with the appellant's counsel and the Original Authority, set aside the Order-in-Appeal, restoring the Original Order, and allowed the appeal. Issue 3: Validity of Order-in-Appeal remanding the matter The Order-in-Appeal remanding the matter back to the Original Authority was challenged in Appeal No. E/2544/2011. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contentions, agreeing with the Original Authority's findings, and set aside the Order-in-Appeal, restoring the Original Order. Issue 4: Sustainability of Order-in-Appeal and Order-in-Original in a subsequent appeal In Appeal No. E/1620/2012, arising from a previous Order-in-Appeal dated 13.06.2011, which was set aside in Appeal No. E/2544/2011, the Tribunal held that neither the subsequent Order-in-Original nor the impugned Order-in-Appeal were sustainable. Due to the earlier decision, Appeal No. E/1620/2012 was deemed infructuous and disposed of as such. This comprehensive analysis highlights the legal intricacies involved in the judgment, focusing on the admissibility of Cenvat Credit in different scenarios and the Tribunal's decisions on remanding matters and the sustainability of orders in subsequent appeals.
|
