9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is found that, the usage of the goods have been mentioned in the show-cause notices itself and after noting the usage, the CENVAT credit is sought to be denied on the ground that the impugned goods have been used for fabrication and erection of support structures, which are embedded to earth and is not an input or a capital goods. Further, once usage is admitted in the show-cause notice itself, appellant is not required to prove the same by any documentary evidence. Further, this issue has consistently been considered by various Benches of the Tribunal and the High Court and it has been held that the MS plates, MS angles, channels, HR sheets used as inputs for fabrication/manufacture of supporting structures to various machines like kiln, c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation and erection of support structure for kiln plants for manufacture of sponge iron and demineralization plant to meet the requirement of water for the power plant and manufacture of sponge iron. On these allegations, show-cause notices were issued proposing to deny the CENVAT credit on all these impugned goods on the ground that they are embedded to earth and thereby becoming immovable property and fall outside the scope of 'Capital Goods' under Rule 2(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. After following the due process, the original authority confirmed the demand on the ground that the assessee has not proved the fact of fabrication of structure by producing documentary evidence. Aggrieved by the orders of the adjudicating authority, appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice and therefore, unsustainable. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: * Caprihans India Ltd. vs. CCE: 2015 (325) ELT 632 (SC) * CCE vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Ltd.: 2015 (326) ELT 3 (SC) * CCE vs. Toyo Engineering Ltd.: 2006 (201) ELT 513 (SC) 5.1 He also submitted that it is a settled legal position that in terms of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 that what is admitted is not required to be proved. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: * CCE, Madras vs. Systems & Components Pvt. Ltd.: 2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC) * Ludhiana Food Products vs. CCE: 1989 (43) ELT 648 (T) * Devender Exports vs. CCE, Ludhiana: 2007 (219) ELT 533 (T) 5.2 He further submitted that the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el.) 5.4 On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that CENVAT credit has been rejected by both the authorities on the ground that the appellants have failed to produce the usage of the impugned goods for fabrication/manufacture of structure to support various machines and the plants. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find from the perusal of the show-cause notices itself that the usage of the goods have been mentioned in the show-cause notices itself and after noting the usage, the CENVAT credit is sought to be denied on the ground that the impugned goods have been used for fabrication and erection of support structures, which are embedded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
