9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (henceforth 'the Tribunal') dismissing the appellant's appeal refusing to allow cenvat credit on the item 'Bins' supplied by M/s Simplex Engineering and Foundry Works Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'M/s Simplex') by holding that the said 'Bins' was wrongly classified under the heading 8474.90 whereas the correct classification would fall under the heading 7308. 2. During the relevant period, M/s Simplex were awarded contract for supply of 'Bins' to the appellant which was supplied to the appellant's unit Bhilai Steel Plant, who in turn availed cenvat credit of duty paid on the said item under Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (henceforth 'the Rules, 1944'). The Revenue later on found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand of duty from M/s Simplex with interest and penalty and modvat credit together with interest and penalty from the appellant - M/s Steel Authority of India, Bhilai Steel Plant. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which came to be decided on 6.6.2016 (Annexure-P/7) thereby setting aside the imposition of penalty, at the same time refusing to decide the appeal on merits pertaining to challenge to denial of credit, as the appellant was not granted permission by the Committee on Disputes (COD) to prefer appeal. 4. The appellant's appeal to the High Court bearing Tax Case No.140/2016 was disposed of remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for decision on merits on the issue of denial of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion as to whether the subject item would fall under heading 7308 or 8474.90, is essentially a question of fact. Moreover, if according to the appellant, the item would fall under heading 8474.90, it was for the appellant to explain as to why it has not claimed cenvat credit for the same item supplied by M/s Hindustan Steel for whom it had earlier availed credit but later on reversed it when the Revenue brought it to the notice of the same. Moreover, the present demand to the extent it falls outside normal time period has already been set aside by the impugned order. Thus confirmation of the demand for reversal of cenvat credit is only to the extent falling within normal time period. The penalty has already been set aside by the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
