9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 887X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons for delay in issuance. In view of precedents by virtue of various decisions of this Tribunal the same ought to have issued within one year from the date of the knowledge about the alleged irregularity - no suppression can be alleged against the appellant and extended period cannot be invoked nor the penalty be imposed on that count. Since complete information was given in statutory returns the normal period of one year would be applicable whereas the proceedings are initiated at a later date and hence the demand is barred by limitation. Credit availed by the appellants on MS Angles, MS Beams, MS channels and poles for wire for transmission of electricity from MSEB feeder to the factory manufacturing sugar and vice versa - denied on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dt (AR) for the respondent ORDER This appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 4.9.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) Central Tax, Pune by which the learned Commissioner upheld the demand of Rs.14,77,770/- alongwith interest and penalty. 2. The issue to be decided herein is whether the Cenvat credit availed by the appellants on the structural steel used for erection of poles for transmission of electricity from MSEB feeder to factory and vice versa and for supporting other capital goods is admissible? 3. The facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are stated in brief as follows. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Sugar and its by-product Molasses. During the period 2011-12 to 2013-14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the Appellant, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 4.9.2018 although allowed the credit of Rs.10,17,460/- which was availed on MS Beams, MS Channels as support for erection of capital goods (machinery) but disallowed the same for the credit availed of Rs. 14,77,770/- being not covered under the definition of the capital goods in terms of Rule 2(a) of CCR, 2004. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and perused the case records including the synopsis case laws placed on record by the learned counsel. No justification has been provided by the department regarding the delay in issuing the show cause notice. Although the alleged irregulari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c. were used for supplying electricity in the factory for the purpose of manufacture sugar and it s by product molasses etc. For running the machinery electricity is essential without which there will be no production. The poles might be outside the factory but for the purpose of manufacturing activity inside the factory. The location is not of much relevance here but the purpose. It is directly related to manufacture of final product in the factory. Therefore the obvious conclusion is that the goods, in issue, even though it is used outside the factory, since it is used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product, the credit of Rs.12,27,850/- in respect of the goods in issue is admissible in terms of Rule 2(a) ibid. So far as ste ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
