9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are supporting structures. I do not accept this plea of the department, as from the nature of the items fabricated, it is clear that the same are component of the various machinery and hence, have to be treated as components of capital goods and accordingly, the steel items used in fabrication of the same would be eligible for Cenvat credit in terms of Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In any case, since on the issue involved in this case, there were conflicting decisions of the Tribunal, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Continental Foundation Joint Venture (2007 (8) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), no mala fide can be attributed to the respondent and accordingly, the longer limitation period under provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand was confirmed along with interest and penalty of ₹ 3,50,000/- was imposed on the respondent. On appeal being filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 4-4-2008 set aside the Addl. Commissioner s order holding that the order is not sustainable on merits as well as on limitation. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue is in appeal. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri M.S. Negi, ld. Departmental Representative, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal and pleaded that the steel items, in question, have not been used by the respondent for fabrication of any capital goods as defined under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. With regard to limitation, she pleaded that even if it is held that the items are not eligible for Cenvat credit on the ground that the same have been used for fabrication and installation of supporting structures, the demand is time barred, as during the period of dispute, there were conflicting decisions on this issue and hence, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Continental Foundation Joint Venture v. CCE, Chandigarh-I reported in 2007-TIOL-152-SC-CX - 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.), longer limitation period of 5 years cannot be applied. She, therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. I have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
