9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 361 - AT - Central ExciseWaiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalty - Denial of CENVAT credit availed by the applicant on capital goods - Held that - As the case law relied on by both the sides are contrary therefore, the applicant has made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit. Accordingly, I waive the requirement of pre-deposit of the entire amount of duty, interest and penalty and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal - Stay granted.
Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty on CENVAT credit availed by the applicant on capital goods for manufacturing a "Vertical storage relating system." Analysis: The applicant sought a waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalty related to the denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods used to manufacture a "Vertical storage relating system." The lower authorities had rejected the CENVAT credit on the grounds that the goods did not qualify as capital goods under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant argued that the storage systems were indirectly related to the manufacture of final products as they were used for storing inputs and capital goods. The appellant relied on the Larger Bench decision in Banco Products (India) Ltd. vs. CCE to support their claim. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the goods in question did not qualify as inputs or capital goods as per Rule 2(a) and 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The respondent cited decisions in cases like Swetha Engineering Ltd. vs. CCE and Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE Raipur to support their argument. The Tribunal considered the submissions from both sides and noted the contradictory case laws relied upon. Given the conflicting precedents cited by both parties, the Tribunal found that the applicant had established a case for the waiver of pre-deposit. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the requirement of pre-deposit for the entire amount of duty, interest, and penalty, and stayed the recovery during the pendency of the appeal. The judgment was delivered by Ashok Jindal, J., at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI.
|
