9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claiming that they have used the items for which this Cenvat credit has been taken; in the light of Tribunal’s decisions in the case of M/s Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (9) TMI 682 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], this Cenvat credit amounting to 25,20,652/- is found admissible. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses, but various structural items MS channels, angle etc. involving total Cenvat credit of ₹ 55,14,450/- (basic duty of ₹ 55,06,324/- and ₹ 1,08,126/-) had not been brought in the factory. (v) The assessee appellant reversed Cenvat credit of ₹ 55,14,450/- (Rs.54,06,324/- Basic Duty and ₹ 1,08,126/-). (vi) It is mentioned in the Show Cause Notice dated 26.3.2002 issued to the appellant that Director of the assessee Company, Shri R.D. Gupta gave the statement to the Supdt. recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 that the assessee reversed Cenvat credit of ₹ 55,14,536/- on 18.7.2006 and he was unable to explain exact use of structural items in his factory. (vii) Shri R.D. Gupta, Director ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir foundation, forming parts thereof, and that the Oxygen gas was used for cutting of scrap mould scrap etc". 5.1 The appellant assessee has also given the defence that the extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excise Act, is not applicable in their case. But the impugned order has held that the assessee appellant suppressed the material facts from the department with intent to evade payment of duty as the appellant did not show in their returns as to what goods were manufactured out of the goods on which Cenvat credit of the duties were availed and that the assessee availed and utilised wrongly and fraudulently the Cenvat credit of huge amount even without receipt of substantial quantity of the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence to support their claim that the goods were factually brought to their factory premises and used for manufacturing supporting structures of specified capital goods, their foundation. Consequently, the demand on account of ₹ 55,14,450/- along with interest and equivalent penalty confirmed by the impugned order is hereby sustained. 8.1 However, in the case of the remaining amount of Cenvat credit of ₹ 25,20,652/-, when the assessee is claiming that they have used the items for which this Cenvat credit has been taken; in the light of Tribunal's decisions in the case of M/s Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (supra), M/s Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Andhra Cements Ltd. (supra) this Cenvat credit amounting to ₹ 25,20,6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
