9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was no intention to take inadmissible Cenvat credit because provision prohibiting such credit was not on the Statute before 06/07/2009. Therefore, there was no intention to avail inadmissible Cenvat credit and since intention could not be established proviso to Sub-section 1 of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 was not invokable in the present case - Appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls etc. contending that such goods were neither input nor capital goods as defined in Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. After the matter was adjudicated ultimately it reached the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the matter through impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 58-CE/APPL-LKO/LKO2015 dated 19/02/2015 and has held that out of the Cenvat credit of ₹ 40,80,699 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10 and the said Show Cause Notice does not give any grounds on the basis of which extended period was invoked. She has contended that during the period, August, 2006 to September, 2008, when credit was availed neither the amendment of Cenvat Credit Rules with effect from 07/07/2009 that Cenvat credit on Steel items used for supporting structures are not admissible nor the pronouncement of this Tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore, there was no intention to avail inadmissible Cenvat credit and since intention could not be established proviso to Sub-section 1 of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 was not invokable in the present case. Therefore, I allow the appeal and setting aside that part of the impugned Order-in-Appeal by which Cenvat credit of ₹ 12,55,855/- was held to be inadmissible. (Dictated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
