9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. It is not in dispute that the impugned goods were used for fabrication of structurals to support various machines and that without these structurals, the machineries could not be erected and could not function. This fact has further been certified by the Chartered Engineer. Credit allowed - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting Authority confirmed the demand of Cenvat Credit along with interest and also imposed equal penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The assessee is in appeal against the impugned order vide Appeal No. E/641/2009. Revenue is in appeal for non-imposition of penalty under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 vide Appeal No. E/711/2009. The assessee has filed a cross objection against this appeal. Revenue in their grounds of appeal have mentioned that the respondent assessee being a manufacturer is liable to both the penalties as prescribed in Rule 15(1) and 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The show cause notice proposed imposition of penalty under Rule 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cenvat credit as components spares and accessories of capital goods within the meaning of Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 being essential and integral for the smooth functioning of the plant and machinery. Ld. Consultant strongly argued that the credit availed on structural items and cement was duly disclosed in the ER-1 returns filed by the assessee and there was no intention of suppressing the fact or to evade payment of central excise duty and the issue involved being interpretational one and in view of the decisions of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Courts and the Supreme Court does not justify the invocation of the extended period of limitation and prayed for setting aside the entire demand on the ground of limitatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the steel plates and M.S. Channels falls within the ambit of capital goods. It is not in dispute that the impugned goods were used for fabrication of structurals to support various machines and that without these structurals, the machineries could not be erected and could not function. This fact has further been certified by the Chartered Engineer. The relevant paragraphs of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Spining & Weaving Mills Ltd. [2010 (255) ELT 481 (S.C.)] are reproduced for appreciation of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. "12. Inter alia observing that capital goods can be machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
