9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 484X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Credit of Rs. 19,01,000/- on Capital Goods as detailed given in Annexure A attached to this notice. The said assessee have availed Cenvat Credit on various goods such as Grating MS, Angle MS, Sleeve H-315, Sleeve Adapter, Housing Plmr Blk SN-519, Hex Nut MS etc. which are used in the construction of factory shed, building and laying of foundation and making of structure for support of capital goods. However in view of Explanation-2 to Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 as amended vide Notification NO. 16/2009-C.E. (NT) dated 07.07.2009, the Cenvat Credit of said input is not allowed the explanation 2. Relying on the ruling of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onal Commissioner was pleased to drop the proposed amount in part and confirmed a reduced amount of Rs. 1,33,609/- and allowed the Cenvat credit of Rs. 17,67,391/-. Further penalty under Rule 15 was imposed at Rs. 1,33,609/-. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant assessee preferred appeal before Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order upheld the order-in-original rejecting the appeal, observing as follows: "From the definition of Capital Goods, it is seen that the materials viz. Steel Plates or Sheets, Bar Rounds etc. against which the Cenvat Credit availed by the appellant cannot be considered as Capital Goods as these goods are neither the parts/components nor the accessories of goods of Chapters 82, 84, 85 or 90 pollution e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Rules, 2004. Accordingly he prays for allowing the appeal with consequential to benefits. 6. The Ld. AR for Revenue Shri Sanjay Hasija have left the court informing that he is not feeling well praying for time. As the issue herein is covered by rulings of Hon'ble Madras High Court, the time plea is rejected and appeal has been taken for hearing and disposal Ex-parte. 7. Considered submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and perused the records. I find that the issue herein is squarely covered in favour of the appellant as held by Hon'ble Madras High Court in appellant's own case (supra), as noted hereinabove. Accordingly, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order to the extent it has confirmed the disallowan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
