9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent taken place after passing the adjudication order, the Adjudicating Authority must reconsider the entire case in view of the facts of this case and considering various judgments passed by various High Courts. Therefore, we are of the considered view that in assessee s appeal, matter should go back to the Adjudicating Authority. The Revenue s appeal seeking setting aside the dropping of demand of ₹ 57,94,280/- on the ground of time-barred, the Adjudicating Authority dropped the said demand holding that in respect of such demand, there is no suppression of facts. It is clear that CERA Audit has conducted audit of records of the appellant including the Cenvat credit record and no objection was raised. Therefore, there is absolu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e steel items used are neither the capital goods nor inputs for providing output service. Therefore, appellant are not entitled for Cenvat credit. He also referred to Board Circular No. 13/90-CX.1 dated 18.04.1990, 53/2/98-CX dated 02.04.1998 and 58/1/2002-CX dated 15.01.2002 which clarified that civil structure are not excisable and are not chargeable to duty, therefore availment of Cenvat credit is not admissible. He also referred to Board Circular F. No. 137/315/2007-CX4 dated 26.02.2008 wherein it was clarified that angles, channels, beams etc. used for building transmission towers and for pre-fabricated buildings, shelters, PUF panels etc. cannot be called as excisable goods being attached to earth and are not chargeable to duty. The i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal. This judgment has been reversed by the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court reported at Vandana Global Limited vs. CCE Cus., Raipur 2018 (16) GSTL 462 (Chhattisgarh). He submits that in the subsequent development on the legal issue, though the Tribunal in the case of Mundra Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited vs. CCE Cus. (Tri. Ahmd.) denied the Cenvat credit however, the said order of the Tribunal was set-aside by the Hon'ble High Court and the credit was allowed in the identical set of facts. He submits that though there was adverse judgment by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Vodafone India Limited vs. CCE, Mumbai 2015 (40) STR 422 (Bom.), however subsequently, in an absolutely identical issue, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- (a) 2015 (40) STR 422 (Bom) - Vodafone India Limited vs. CCE, Mumbai-II (b) 2016 (42) STR 249 (Tri-LB) - Tower Vision India Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, (Adj.) Delhi. (c) 2017 (52) STR 434 (Tri-Ahmd) - Fascel Limited vs. CST, Ahmedabad (d) 2015 (326) ELT 650 (Bom) - Tigrania Metal Steel Industries Pvt. Limited vs. CCE 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. The issue to be decided is that whether the appellant is entitled for the Cenvat Credit on steel items such as M.S. Angles/Channels/G.P. Coils/Beams etc., which were used f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ating Authority. 7. As regards the Revenue s appeal seeking setting aside the dropping of demand of ₹ 57,94,280/- on the ground of time-barred, we find that Adjudicating Authority dropped the said demand holding that in respect of such demand, there is no suppression of facts. The Adjudicating Authority has given the following findings:- 44.2 I find from the copy of audit report F. No. RA-2/CERA/Nee. Ree./166/07-08 dated 19.11.2007 issued by the Deputy Audit Officer, CERA, Ahmedabad that there is no dispute to the fact that CERA audit for the period April 2002 to March 2007 had been conducted on the said assessee and no objection with regard to wrong availment of Cenvat credit on M.S. Angles/Channels/G.P. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
