9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that these items are neither inputs nor capital goods, issued a show cause notice for recovery of allegedly wrongly taken cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 2,70,773/- in respect of these items during the period from January, 2005 to March 2005 alongwith interest and also for imposition of penalty. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner who vide order-in-original dated 30.11.2006 denied the cenvat credit in respect of above items and confirmed cenvat credit demand of Rs. 2,70,774/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount on the respondent. However, on appeal filed by the respondent, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order-in-appeal dated 27.09.2007 allowed the appeal on the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal and cross-objection. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Ms. Shweta Bector, ld. DR assailed the impugned order and reiterating the grounds of appeal, emphasised that while some quantity of welding electrodes and steel items have been used for repair and maintenance, the bulk of the quantity have been used for supporting structures which are not eligible for cenvat credit in view of the larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur reported in 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri. LB) and hence the impugned order permitting the cenvat credit in respect of welding electrodes and steel items used and erection of supporting structure for machinery is not correct. With regard to eligibility of the items and for repair an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e grounds of appeal state that these items have been used for repair and maintenance, and if this is so, the issue stands decided against the revenue and that as regards the jointing gasket sheet, according to the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding the same are necessary to prevent the leakage of steam and canejuice, though the appeal filed by the revenue does not mention this item, and that in view of the above submissions, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. I have considered submissions from both the sides and perused the records. Though Hon'ble A.P. High Court in the case of Sree Rayalaseem Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd. vs. CC&CE, Tirupari reported in 2012 (278) ELT 167 (A.P.) has taken a contrary view in respect of welding electrode ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
