9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has reversed the credit to the tune of ₹ 29,88,775/- even before the issuance of the show-cause notice - The irregular credit having been reversed prior to the utilisation, so, the appellant is not liable to pay interest Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/2730/2012-SM - A/31379/2016 - Dated:- 8-12-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C. S., Member (Judicial) Shri Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant Shri P.S. Reddy, Asst. Commissioner(AR) for the Respondent ORDER [ Order per Sulekha Beevi, C.S. ] The brief facts are that appellants are engaged in manufacturing cement, cement clinkers and are availing the facility of CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods. The appellants had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the appellant. That the appellant had been regularly filing ER1 returns and the availment of credit was disclosed in the returns. That therefore the show-cause notice issued invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. 3. On merits, the learned counsel submitted that pursuant to the expansion works undertaken the appellant had given contracts to one M/s. Hajee A.P. Bava Co. That major part of the MS items were used for fabrication and erection of capital goods such as pre-heater, coal crusher building, coal mill building etc. The credit has been sought to be denied by the Department alleging that some parts of these capital goods such as external staircase to these coal crushers, pre-heaters etc. are supporting s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CCE, Bangalore Vs. Flextronics Technologies (India) Pvt.Ltd. [2015-TIOL-676-HC-KAR-CX] 4. On behalf of the Department, the learned AR Shri P.S. Reddy reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant was fully aware that the MS items were used for civil construction works and therefore having availed irregular credit is not eligible for the same. The fact of irregular availment of credit would not have come to light but for the inspection conducted by the officers of the Department. That therefore the show-cause notice issued invoking the extended period of limitation is legal and proper. That the authorities below have rightly denied the credit for the reason that MS items have been used for structural item ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellant on MS items used for civil construction as well as temporary structures is not eligible for credit. The same is disallowed. The appellant has reversed the credit to the tune of ₹ 29,88,775/- even before the issuance of the show-cause notice. The irregular credit having been reversed prior to the utilisation, the appellant is not liable to pay interest as decided in the case of BEML Ltd. Vs. CCE,CC CST, Bangalore-I [2016-TIOL-3157-CESTAT-BANG] and in CCE, Bangalore-II Vs. Swastik Engineering [2014(302) ELT 333 (Kar.)] 6. From the foregoing discussions, I hold that the appellant is eligible for credit of ₹ 18,00,168/-. The credit of ₹ 11,88,607/- is disallowed. The demand in respect of the same is sustaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
