2018 (7) TMI 161 – CESTAT KOLKATA – TMI – CENVAT credit – inputs – cement, angles, TMT bars, etc – Held that:- The impugned order has relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. [2010 (4) TMI 133 – CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)] in holding that the definition of ‘inputs’ does not include cement, angles, TMT bars, etc. However, this judgment of the Tribunal has been disapproved by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Surya Alloy Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [2014 (9) TMI 406 – CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] – credit cannot be denied.
–
Further, the Chartered Engineer’s certificate reflects that the impugned goods were actually used during the manufacture of the final products – the usage of various iron and steel items is to be analysed in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. [2010 (7) TMI 12 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA].
–
Shortage of finished goods detected during the stock verific
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
l reason for shortage and deposited the entire amount of duty of ₹ 82,906/-. The adjudicating authority confirmed demand of duty of ₹ 82,906/- alongwith interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount of duty. It has also disallowed Cenvat Credit of ₹ 3,89,093/- along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of Cenvat Credit on capital goods. The officers also found that the appellant had taken credit on MS Angle, joist, channel, beam, TMT bars, etc. considering them as capital goods. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 18.06.2007 was issued proposing demand of Central Excise Duty of ₹ 81,280/- along with interest and irregular availment of Cenvat Credit of ₹ 3,81,479/- with interest and to impose penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 3. The ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that there was an extra
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
STR 726 (Guj.). 4. The ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 5. I find that the impugned order has relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. reported as 2010 (253) ELT 0440 Tri.-LB in holding that the definition of inputs does not include cement, angles, TMT bars, etc. However, this judgment of the Tribunal has been disapproved by the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Surya Alloy Industries Ltd. v. Union of India reported as 2014 (305) ELT 47 (Cal.). Therefore, credit on the impugned goods cannot be denied to the appellant. 6. Further, the Chartered Engineer s certificate reflects that the impugned goods were actually used during the manufacture of the final products. I find that the usage of various iron and steel items is to be analysed in light of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. reported as 2010 (255) ELT 481 (SC). In this judgment, the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =