9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive consumption on payment of duty under their Internal Challans called Internal Material Consumption Notes (IMCNs) issued by various stores; c) taken credit on certain inputs/goods, which were not properly declared, and they were described by their brand name or company name like Nalco; d) availed credit on Welding Electrodes used in the repairs and maintenance of the machinery and also in civil maintenance/construction; e) taken CENVAT Credit on High Tensile Steel scrap (7212.30) for use in packing on the strength of invoices issued by M/s. ITW Signode, Rudraram, Medak. The invoices show RINL (Visakhapatnam) as the consignee in the form "RINL, Visakhapatnam", A/C ITW Signode India Ltd, Visakhapatnam; f) availed credit of duty on certain goods like Street Light Fittings, Batteries, Telephone Equipment, Railway Wheels, Tubeless Tyres etc; g) taken credit on goods, which are removed from one store to another, but their actual usage is not declared and known; and h) taken credit on Aluminium Wire Rod Coils, which cannot be taken as inputs. 2. Hence 10 show cause notices starting from 05-05-03 to 26-03-04 were issued to them inter alia for denial of credit irregularly taken dur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ground that they are used in the manufacturing process subject to the condition that the assessee furnished a proper statement of use of inputs/ capital goods to avoid such notices; Accordingly, the adjudicating authority: i)Disallowed the inter alia credit of Rs. 3,44,87,475/- as detailed in the Annexure and ordered for recovery of Rs. 3,32,05,284/- after adjusting the amounts already paid, under the provisions of Rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules; ii) Ordered an amount of credit of Rs. 2,52,81,079/- as admissible and allowed the same; iii) Demanded Rs. 25,180/- being differential duty payable under Section 11A (1); iv) Ordered that interest in accordance with the provisions of Section 11AB shall be paid on the amounts disallowed/payable as above; v) Imposed a cumulative penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- under Rule 13 of the CENVAT Credit Rules and Rule 25/27 of the Central Excise Rules for all the show cause notice. Aggrieved department has filed appeal no. E/812/2005. 4. With regard to Appeal E/960/05, certain discrepancies were noticed during scrutiny of the CENVAT returns filed under Rule 7 of CENVAT Credit rules 2002, for the period 4/2003 to 8/2003. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Rule 13 of Cenvat Credit rules, 2002 and Rule 25/27 of CER, 2002, along with interest in accordance with the provisions of Section 11AB, in respect of all the 3 Show-Cause Notices. Aggrieved, the department has preferred appeal no. E/960/2005. 5. The grounds raised by department are as follows: I) In the Show Cause Notices dated 30.04.04 and 25.05.04, credit was sought to be denied on the inputs silicon Carbide Grains on various grounds including the ones that the assessee has not furnished the details of hte capital goods/spares etc., which were purported to have been manufactured out of these items, the tariff head under which these manufactured goods fall, to determine whether they fall within the definition of capital goods. The Commissioner has allowed the credit but has not given any reasons for allowing the same. The Commissioner has stated at para 8 that he has discussed the eligibility of credit in the Order-in-Original No.71/03-04(RP) dated 28.04.04 but it is seen that there is no such discussion in that order. II) Credit on all items of Annexure C of the show Cause Notices dated 30.04.04 and 25.05.04 was also sought to be denied on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as detailed in Annexure B to the notice on the ground that the goods do not satisfy the definition of capital gods as per Rule 2(b) of the Cenvat Credit rules, 2002. The Commissioner has allowed credit of an amount of Rs. 91,011/- but has not made a discussion about how the goods are eligible for credit. The Order-in-Original no.71/03-04 has also not discussed this point. Similar grounds have been made in respect of appeal no. 812/2005. 6. On behalf of Revenue/ Appellant the Ld. AR Sh. P.S. Reddy reiterated the grounds of appeal. 7. On behalf of respondent Sh. Karan Talwar adverted our attention to the fact that against the order impugned herein, the respondent/assessee had approached the CESTAT vide appeal no. E/68/2005 in respect of Rs. 2,57,99,188/- which was disallowed by the adjudicating authority; the Tribunal vide Final Orde No. 396/2007 dated 26.03.2007 had allowed credit of the entire amount. 8. In respect of departmental appeal E/960/2005, Ld. Counsel submits that concerned items are used in manufacture of other items which is in turn used in the process of manufacture and hence eligible for credit; that adjudicating authority has allowed credit after satisfying hims ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the steel making process. viii) with reference to capital goods Commissioner has allowed credit after considering submissions made by them. 11. Heard both sides. The eligibility of various inputs and capital goods for the purpose of availment of CENVAT Credit has become more broader over the years pursuant to various judgments of Tribunals and other higher courts including the Hon'ble Apex Court. On going through the impugned orders it is seen that the adjudicating authority has gone into each disputed issue in detail and arrived at well reasoned finding in respect of the amounts of credit allowed by him. We do not find any infirmities in respect of the credits allowed by adjudicating authority in the impugned orders. In any case, even in respect of credits disallowed by adjudicating authority in order impugned in Appeal 812/2005, the Tribunal, on earlier appeal no. E/68/2005 by the respondent herein, has allowed credit of the entire amount vide Final Order No. 396/07 dated 26.03.2007. We also note that the issues are fairly covered by the case laws cited by the Ld. Counsel for respondent. 12. From the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
