9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1074 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods - goods falling under Chapter 38, 40, 73, 83 and 84 - denial on the ground that these goods used in the erection of CPP ceased to be excisable goods - Held that - A proper adjudication is required on facts, following the guidelines laid down by various higher forums which are referred to in appellant s own cases - the matter requires reconsideration in the same lines as in the final order in the appellant s own case in CHETTINAD CEMENT CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (TRICHY), COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, LTU (CHENNAI) 2016 (12) TMI 218 - CESTAT, CHENNAI . Penalty - Held that - There shall be no levy of penalty in the circumstances of the case since interpretation of law is involved. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit on certain goods used in the erection of Captive Power Plant (CPP). 2. Appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the disallowed Cenvat Credit. 3. Interpretation of law regarding the eligibility of Cenvat Credit on specific goods under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellant, a Public Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of Cement and Clinker, availed Cenvat Credit for inputs, capital goods, and input services. The Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice alleging wrongly availed Cenvat credit on capital goods for specific periods related to their Captive Power Plant. The adjudicating authority confirmed the disallowance of credit on goods falling under certain chapters, stating they ceased to be excisable goods when used in the CPP. The appellant challenged this disallowance. Issue 2: The appellant contended that similar issues were previously remanded by the Tribunal for fresh consideration, citing relevant judgments. The appellant argued for reconsideration based on the principles established in those cases. The Department Representative relied on High Court decisions to support the adjudicating authority's findings. The Tribunal acknowledged the need for proper adjudication based on precedents and directed reconsideration in line with previous orders and judgments. Issue 3: The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and precedents, partly allowed the appeals. It emphasized the requirement for a thorough reconsideration of the matter in accordance with established guidelines and legal interpretations. The Tribunal decided against imposing penalties due to the involvement of law interpretation. The judgment was pronounced on 20.06.2018, highlighting the importance of fair consideration and adherence to legal principles in determining the eligibility of Cenvat Credit under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
|
