9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It is common ground that the petitioner is availing of the facility of Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods as provided under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. In terms of five different notices issued to the petitioner, the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise called upon the petitioner to show cause why Cenvat credit of Rs. 1,16,14,350/- availed of by the petitioner-company during the period January to August, 2003 be not disallowed and the amount recovered from it as the items in regard to which the said credit was taken did not qualify for the same. The petitioner filed its reply to the show cause notices which was considered and rejected by the Commissioner in terms of an order dated 24th March, 2005. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the above order, the petitioner-company appealed to the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi. The appeal was accompanied by an application under proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act for a complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the amount of duty demanded and the penalty levied by the Commissioner. The petitioner's case before the Tribunal was that the Commissioner had failed to consider each one of the 91 items in regard to which the demand for reversal of the credit was made. It was also contended that the items in question were not for repairs or maintenance and fabrication of structures. These items or at least most of them were, according to the petitioner, capital goods or parts of capital goods which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of waiver of pre-deposit may not by itself be sufficient for the writ court to step in and modify or reverse the order passed by the Tribunal. That being so, we see little room for our interference in the orders passed by the Tribunal in the instant case. The Tribunal has taken note of the contentions urged before it and prima facie come to the conclusion that some of the items on which the petitioner has claimed credit like the platforms for weighbridge, Monkey ladder for plant, shed over coal dump hopper, Platforms, Beams column and boiler, sand bunker and staircase for boiler did not qualify for Cenvat credit as they could not be treated as capital goods or parts of capital goods. That conclusion is based on a prima facie appreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
