2018 (2) TMI 1

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... used for construction activities will satisfy the eligibility criteria as contained in Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules - credit allowed. Time limitation - Held that: - There is no allegation in the show-cause notice reflecting upon any suppression or mis-statement, with intent to evade payment of duty on the part of the assessee - in the absence of any malafide, demand is barred by limitation. Appeal allowed in toto.
Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant - Shri S. Muthuvenkataraman, Adv. For the Respondent - Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC (AR) ORDER The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cement and was availing the Cenvat credit of duty paid on various inputs used for the purpose of manufacturing. They wer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Vs M/s. India Cements Ltd., reported in 2014 (310) E.L.T.636 (Mad,) wherein it was held that such steel items used for construction activities will satisfy the eligibility criteria as contained in Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules. To the same effect is the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs M/s. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. The other decisions in the appellant's own case holding to the same effect are as under:- (i) M/s. India Cements Ltd Vs CESTAT, Chennai reported in 2015 (321) E.L.T. 209 (Mad.); (ii) Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli Vs M/s. India Cements Ltd, report .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ivities. Inasmuch as, the issue stands covered in a catena of judgments in its own cases cited supra, wherein it was held that the appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit. 5. Apart from the merits of the case, learned counsel challenged the order on limitation. The demand of duty of ₹ 15,58,483/- for the year 1996 was raised by show-cause notice, dated 22.08.1996. The normal period of limitation during the relevant period was six months and except for few days, the demand is barred by limitation. There is no allegation in the show-cause notice reflecting upon any suppression or mis-statement, with intent to evade payment of duty on the part of the assessee. Further such credit was availed by reflecting the same in the statutory record .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X