9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has accepted that credit cannot be denied on the ground of immovability but still he has denied the credit by invoking the user test which was not an allegation in the show-cause notice - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20969/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20130/2019 - Dated:- 18-1-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Raghavendra B. Hanjeer, Advocate For the Appellant Smt. Kavita Podwal, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 30/03/2018 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not sustainable as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and law. He further submitted that the show-cause notice has proposed to deny the credit on the allegation that HR sheets, MS plates, channels, joists, beams etc. used in fabrication of kiln, pollution control equipment, conveyor system, storage tanks / bunkers etc. which are embedded to earth so as to form immovable property and hence, the same cannot be considered as capital goods as defined under Rule 2(a) of the CCR, 2004. However, the impugned order having accepted that the credit cannot be denied on the ground of immovability, has denied the credit on the ground of non-production of documents which was not the allegation raised in the show-cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CE, Vadodara-I [2013(292) ELT 578 (Tri. Ahmd.)] iii. Monnet Ispat Energy Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2015(330) ELT 711 (Tri. Del.)] iv. India Cements Ltd. Vs. CESTAT [2015(321) ELT 209 (Mad.)] v. Commissioner Vs. India Cements Ltd. [2014(305) ELT 558 (Mad.)] 4.3. He further submitted that the credit demand for the period prior to November 2009 is barred by limitation as the issue is relating to the interpretation of the definition of capital goods and also in view of the subsequent decisions settling the issue in favour of the assessee. He relied upon the decision in the case of Vanya Steels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE,C ST, Mysore [Final Order NO.20473/2018 dt. 01/03/2018]. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
