9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty, whereas rectified spirit is non-excisable product, which is used captively for manufacture of excisable goods i.e. denatured spirit. During the course of audit of records in the factory premises of the appellant, the central excise officers observed that the appellant had availed Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 14,42,000/- on the capital goods, which were exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted grain base ENA/rectified spirit. It was further observed that the appellant had also availed input service credit amounting to Rs. 7,51,900/- on construction services, which were used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted composed fertilizer. Since the capital goods and input services were used/utilized by the appellant exclusively f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be said that the capital goods were exclusively used in the manufacture of such waste product. To support the stand that Cenvat Credit has been rightly availed by the appellant on the capital goods installed in the factory, the Learned Advocate has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Belgaum Vs. Vishwanath Sugars Ltd. 2015 (325) E.L.T. 588 (Kar.) and the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Mankapur Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow 2017 (6) G.S.T.L. 188 (Tri.-All.) to support such stand. 4. On the other hand, the Learned DR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. Hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... struction service, I find that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide paragraph 7 in the impugned order has held that the appellant had not extended any argument regarding availment of such credit. I also find from the appeal records that the appellant has not made any specific grounds in support of its claim that it is entitle for the benefit of input service credit used in the construction activities. Therefore, in absence of proper substantiation of the issue, I am of the view that the impugned order denying the Cenvat benefit on input service amounting to Rs. 7,51,900/- cannot be interfered with at this juncture. In other words, the appellant is liable to pay/reverse Cenvat Credit on the input services used for the construction service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
