9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not eligible to avail CENVAT credit on other items i.e. MS plates MS angles, MS channels and MS sheets. In the second appeal No.21157/2014 penalty was imposed on the authorized representative Mr G.T. Arul Raj for availing Cenvat Credit wrongly. Since the facts and evidence in both the appeals are common, therefore both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are holders of Central Excise Registration and are engaged in the manufacture of TMT bars falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 and they enjoy the facility of Cenvat Credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 (CCR in short). Gathering of intelligence by the Headquarters Preventiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MS sheets were used in the factory to cover the furnace and chimney which was in the production line and that the MS plates were also used to cover the rolling stand and further the furnace was classifiable under Chapter Heading No.8514/CETA and that the furnace was used to heat the ingots/billets before the rolling and therefore the furnace was directly used in the manufacture of finished goods and further the parts of the furnace were classifiable under Sub-Heading No.85149000 of CETA. They also submitted that the chimney was part of the furnace. The appellants also contested the invoking of extended period of limitation. After considering the submissions of the appellant, learned Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal in respe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal goods i.e. furnace and chimney. He further submitted that there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty and the department has not been able to bring evidence on record to show that the appellants have suppressed material facts. The learned counsel further submitted that there was plethora of judgements and decisions of various courts in favour of the appellant and the appellants was under a bonafide belief that they are eligible for Cenvat credit on these disputed items. In support of his submissions, the appellant has relied upon the following decisions: 1) UOI Vs Hindustan Zinc Ltd [2007(214)ELT 510(Raj] 2) CCE, Cus & ST Visakhapatnam Vs Jindal Stainless Ltd [2016(343)ELT 527(Tri-Bang)] 3) DSM Sugar Mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anner dealing with excisable goods, which they knew or had reason to believe, were liable for confiscation. Just for wrong availment of Cenvat Credit of Rs. 40,022/- by the appellant company penalty under Rule 26 on its authorised signatories would not be justified. In view of this, penalty on Shri Rajesh Dixit and Shri Rajesh Agrawal, authorised signatories of the appellant company is liable to be set aside." On the other hand learned A.R. reiterated the findings of the impugned order. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the disputed items have been used in the factory to cover the furnace and the chimney which are used to cover the rolling stand and the part of the furn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
