9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... abrication of various capital goods is allowed for CENVAT credit. Time limitation - Held that: - the period involved is March, 2007 whereas the show-cause notice was issued on 21.3.2012. Therefore, the extended period cannot be invoked as no suppression of facts or mala fide can be attributed to the respondent. Appeal dismissed on merits as well as on time bar - decided against Revenue. - E/85835/16 E/CO/91053/16 - A/91613/2017 - Dated:- 22-9-2017 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Ajay Kumar, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for Appellant Ms. Aparna Hirandagi, Advocate for Respondent ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair The issue involved is whether the respondent was eligible for CENVAT Credit on the steel goods namely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Revenue. 2. Shri Ajay Kumar, learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterating the grounds of appeal submits that the steel items on which CENVAT Credit was availed is neither an input nor capital goods, therefore, the CENVAT Credit is not admissible. In support, he placed reliance on the following judgments: - (a) Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow Vs DSCL Sugar - 2012 (280) ELT 89 (Tri-Del) (b) Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur Vs. Shri Bajrang Metallics Pvt. Ltd. - 2010 (258) ELT 250 (Tri-Del) (c) Vivek Alloys Ltd. - 1998 (104) ELT 541 (Tri) 3. Ms. Aparna Hirandagi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the issue is no longer res i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is also observed that this matter was remanded back by the Tribunal despite recording the judgment of Vandana Global Ltd., which was overturned by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Mundra Port (supra). Therefore, the Revenue cannot argue again by taking the support of Larger Bench judgment of Vandana Global (supra). The Tribunal has remanded with the clear direction to verify the use of the said inputs. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his order clearly recorded as under: - 4.1 I find, in the light of fresh submission and from the copies of list of inputs and its location of utilization, that these products have been utilized for the manufacture/fabrication of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
