2017 (11) TMI 431

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat appellant has failed to establish usage of the items in the factory - this case needs to be remanded back to the original authority to verify the actual usage of the impugned goods in the fabrication of various items as alleged by the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/20816/2017-SM - 22658/2017 - Dated:- 30-10-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri Raghavendra B., Advocate For the Appellant Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 20/03/2017 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) wherein Commissioner(Appeals) rejected the appeal and upheld the order-in-original. 2. Briefly the facts of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... which can establish the actual usage of the impugned goods. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4.1. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed contrary to the show-cause notice and also contrary to the binding judicial precedent on the same issue. He further submitted that the show-cause notice has been proposed to deny the credit on HR sheets, MS plates, channels, beams joists etc. in fabrication of furnace shell, electrodes mantle, pressure rings, conveyor galleries / supports and raw material hoppers etc. which are embedded to earth so as to form immovable proper .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s for capital goods or structural for support of capital goods is settled in favour of the appellant in the following decisions:- i. Suguna Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC,CE ST, Hyderabad-I [2016(339) ELT 119 (Tri. Hyd.)] ii. Metrochem Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara-I [2013(292) ELT 578 (Tri. Ahmd.)] iii. Monnet Ispat Energy Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2015(330) ELT 711 (Tri. Del.)] iv. India Cements Ltd. Vs. CESTAT [2015(321) ELT 209 (Mad.)] v. Commissioner Vs. India Cements Ltd. [2014(305) ELT 558 (Mad.)] 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that CENVAT credit has been rightly denied on the ground that appellant has failed to prove the actual usage of these impugned g .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X