9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 710X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ute the receipt of subject items into the factory. So also there is no case that subject items were diverted in any manner - the appellant is eligible for the credit to the tune of ₹ 2,17,188/- - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/27553/2013; E/21715/2014 - A/31372-31373/2016 - Dated:- 8-12-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri Lalit Mohan Chandana, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Arun Kumar, Deputy Commissioner(AR) for the respondent. [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] The issue involved in both these appeals being the same, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellants were issued three show-cause notices alleging irregular avai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the manufacture/fabrication of capital goods and therefore the credit ought to have been allowed. He relied upon the decision in the case of Modi Rubber Ltd. [2000(119) ELT 197 (Tri. LB)] and argued that the appellant ought to be allowed credit even though the subject items did not fall within the definition of capital goods but would fall within the definition of inputs. He submitted that the amount of ₹ 2,17,188/- includes the amount of ₹ 24,679/- availed on welding electrodes. The learned counsel submitted that credit of ₹ 84,025/- has been disallowed and fairly submitted that this amount is the 2 nd installment and for earlier periods, the credit of 50% on capital goods was disallowed and he is not pressing for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... repair and maintenance. Further the subject items when used for fabrication of capital goods would fall under the category of inputs. The Department does not dispute the receipt of subject items into the factory. So also there is no case that subject items were diverted in any manner. In view thereof, I hold that the appellant is eligible for the credit to the tune of ₹ 2,17,188/- in the respective appeals. The impugned orders to the extent of disallowing credit of ₹ 2,17,188/- in both the appeals is set aside. The disallowance of credit of ₹ 84,025/- in appeal No.E/27553/2013 is sustained. In the result, the appeal No.E/27553/2013 is partly allowed. Appeal No.E/21715/2014 is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
