2013 (7) TMI 789

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... se items being neither inputs nor covered by the definition of capital goods, are not eligible for Cenvat credit. Accordingly, after issue of show cause notice, the Deputy Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 27/8/09 confirmed the above-mentioned Cenvat credit demand alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount on the respondent. In course of proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, the respondent had pleaded that these steel items had been used either for repair and maintenance of sugar mill machinery or for fabrication of various components of sugar mill machinery, but this plea was not accepted by the Deputy Commissioner. On appeal being filed against the Deputy Commissioners order before the Commissioner (Appeals), th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in respect of steel items like MS Angles, Channels, Plates etc. the purpose for which the same has been used is important and Cenvat credit can be allowed only if there is clear evidence on record holding that these items had been used for the manufacture of capital goods for use in the factory, that in this case the respondent have not produced any such evidence and hence the impugned order allowing the Cenvat credit is not sustainable.    3. I have considered the submissions of learned DR and have gone through the records of this case. Ongoing through the impugned order, I find that as per the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), the steel items, in question, have been used either for repair and maintenance of existing plant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er in the show cause notice or in the order-in-original. It appears that the appellants version of use of impugned iron and steel items in the manufacture of new plant and machinery and for repair of existing plant and machinery has not been taken cognizance of without offer of any observation and a unilateral conclusion has been arrived that the items have not been used, as contended by the appellant. There is no material in the case which proves or even remotely indicates that the impugned items have been used otherwise than for the purposes claimed by the appellant. In the absence of any such material, the claim of the appellant concerning the use of the materials have to be considered as genuine.    8. As per the details fur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X