2018 (10) TMI 1462

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ll these appeals to the original authority to verify the usage of the impugned goods on the basis of Chartered Engineer certificate and other documents which the appellants may rely upon in order to prove the usage - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/21195/2018-SM, E/21276/2018-SM, E/21321/2018-SM, E/21323/2018-SM, E/21352/2018-SM, E/21353/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21650-21655/2018 - Dated:- 24-10-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Raghavendra, Advocate For the Appellant Mrs. Kavitha Podwal, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG Appellants have filed six appeals directed against the impugned order dated 4.6.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A), whereby the Commissioner (A) has re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ys Pvt. Ltd. Rs.17,40,854/- + interest Rs.17,40,854/- 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that Revenue has entertained a view that the appellants in these cases have wrongly availed CENVAT credit on goods such as MS angles, joists, channels, MS plates/sheets falling under Chapter 72 of CETA, 1985 as inputs and capital goods used for fabrication of supporting structure for the equipment. As per the Revenue, the resultant structures are not covered under the definition of capital goods in terms of Rule 2(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. Accordingly, show-cause notice were issued to all the appellants proposing to demand ineligible CENVAT credit in terms of Rule 14 of CCR along .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ation of capital goods and therefore, they fall in definition of capital goods in terms of Rule 2(a) of CCR, 2004 and they have also been used for fabrication of parts/components/accessories and constitute inputs in terms of Rule 2(k) of CCR, 2004. He further submitted that the Commissioner (A) has held that the appellant has failed to prove the usage of the impugned goods through documentary evidence, whereas the appellants have produced the Chartered Engineer certificate before the Commissioner (A) but the Commissioner (A) has refused to consider the same on the ground that the same has not been produced before the original authority and the original authority did not get the opportunity to examine and verify the usage. Consequently, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X