9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1070X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is fallacious inasmuch as the credit is allowed on the capital goods and not on qua manufacturer or lessor of the capital goods. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - the appellant has failed to establish that all the facts were communicated to the Department in 2008 and not suppressed - extended period of limitation has correctly invoked and the demand is not barred by limitation as claimed by the Appellant. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Central Excise Appeal No. 10099 of 2014-SM - Final Order No. A/10405/2017 - Dated:- 21-2-2017 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) Shri Devashish K. Trivedi, Advocate for the appellants Shri J. Nagori A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue ORDER Per Dr. D.M. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the amount of central excise duty paid thereof. Further, it was submitted that on a plain reading of the relevant provision, that is, sub-Rule (4) of Rule 4 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, it appears that the depreciation was availed by the lessor of the capital goods and since the lessor is neither a service provider nor manufacturer, hence, there should be no restriction on availing CENVAT credit of duty paid on the capital goods in the hands of the Appellant. He submitted that in view of judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Surendra Industries (I) (P) Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Bangalore -2006 (198) ELT 397 (Tri-Bang.), later upheld by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court, the CENVAT credit would be admissible to the lessee-Appellant, even thoug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed copy of the illegible one, annexed at page 31 of the appeal paper book, and the reply-letter dated 30.6.2008, in response to the departments letter, claimed to be written by the appellant does not bear any acknowledgement of the Department, hence, cannot be relied upon. He has further submitted that in the letter dated 30.6.2008, the appellant had categorically informed to the Department that M/s Gujarat Gas Co. Ltd. had availed depreciation under Sec. 32 of Income Tax Act,1961 hence , they cannot be asked to reverse the credit on capital goods under Rule 4(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In the statement of Shri Sudarsanan Nair, Authorised Signatory of the appellant recorded subsequently, that is on 19.1.2012, he has taken an altogethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed that even if the lessor had availed depreciation, the CENVAT credit cannot be denied on such capital goods in the hands of lessee. The argument is fallacious inasmuch as the credit is allowed on the capital goods and not on qua manufacturer or lessor of the capital goods. The decision cited by the ld. Advocate in the case of Sundara Industries (I) (P) Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the said case even though the depreciation was not availed by the Financer KSFC, but mere non-supply of relevant certificate, resulted in denial of the credit to the lessee. In contrast, there is specific averment in the present case about availment of depreciation by the lessor M/s B.G. India Energy Services Pvt. Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
