9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acture cannot be carried out effectively by the appellant. It has to be stated that on introduction of explanation in the definition of inputs after 07.07.2009 the restriction is only when the MS items are used for construction of shed, laying of foundation etc. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - the appellants have filed ER-1 returns regularly, the extended period is not invokable as the issue is a contentious one. Disallowance of credit is unjustified - appeal allowed. - Appeal No. E/330/2012 - Order No.A/30838/2016 - Dated:- 12-9-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (J) And Sh. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (T) Sh. G. Prahlad, Advocate for the Appellant. Sh. P.S. Reddy, Authorised Representative for the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit falls prior to 07.07.2009 and the department has relied upon the decision laid in M/s Vandana Global Ltd., case to hold that the credit is not eligible. On perusal of the records it is seen that the subject items are used for fabrication of support structures conveyer system, hoppers, silos, railway sidings etc. It is not disputed that without these support structures and such other capital goods fabricated using the MS items, the process of manufacture cannot be carried out effectively by the appellant. It has to be stated that on introduction of explanation in the definition of inputs after 07.07.2009 the restriction is only when the MS items are used for construction of shed, laying of foundation etc. Major thrust by the department i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Cements Ltd.2006(203) ELT-143(Tri-Chennai), India Cements Ltd Vs Cestat, Chennai 2015(321) ELT-209 (Mad) and CCE ST Vs India Cements Ltd.2014(310) ELT-636(Mad). The decisions in the appellants own case, cited by the appellant has held that credit availed on MS items used for fabrication/erection of capital goods is admissible. Following the propositions laid in the appellants own case, I hold that the denial of credit is unjustified. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs if any. We are in total agreement with the view taken in the said case which was rendered by this Tribunal (SM). 6. It is also submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the lower adjudicating authority had hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ful misstatement. Similarly, the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore v. Karnataka Agro Chemicals - 2008 (227) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) held that it is well settled that mere non-declaration is not sufficient to invoke the larger period. Some positive act of suppression is required for invoking larger period of limitation under Section 11A. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Prakash Industries Limited v. Commissioner of C.Ex., Chandigarh - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) held that in the case of divergent views of the various High Courts there was a bona fide doubt as to whether or not such activity amounted to manufacture. In such situation, the extended period cannot be invoked. In Uniworth Textiles Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
