2019 (1) TMI 815 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – input/capital goods – M.S. Angles, Bars, Sheets, Beams etc. – scope of SCN – Held that:- The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the issue entirely in a different manner inasmuch as the appellant had categorically denied that the disputed goods were not used for laying foundation or making structural support of the capital goods – the matter should go back to the original adjudicating authority for proper fact finding regarding nature of use of the disputed goods by the appellant in its factory premises – appeal allowed by way of remand. – Appeal No. E/87172/2018 – A/88204/2018 – Dated:- 12-9-2018 – Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri R.V. Shetty, Advocate for appellant Shri A.S. Parabh, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of M.S. Angles, Bars, Sheets, Beams etc., falling under Chapter 72 and 73 of CETA, 1985. The appellant
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
e rules read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 19.04.2018 has upheld the adjudged demand confirmed in the original order, holding that the disputed goods were used in laying foundation and making supporting structure to the capital goods and thus, as per the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise – 2016 (42) STR 249 (Tri.) and Vandana Global Ltd. v. CCE – 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri. LB), Cenvat benefit will not available on the disputed goods. It has further been held in the impugned order that since M.S. Beams were used for erection of poles for carrying out the activity of transmission of electricity and not used for generation of electricity, Cenvat benefit of M.S. Beams cannot be extended to the appellant. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 19.04.2018, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), CGS
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
n order dated 30.10.2015, I find that vide paragraph 6 therein the adjudicating authority has recorded the submissions made by the appellant pursuant to the show cause notice issued to it. The submissions made by the appellant, as recorded in the adjudication order, are relevant for consideration of the present appeal. Therefore, the submissions are extracted herein below:- 6. In response to above show-cause notice, the assessee filed replies which were received by this office on 15.07.2015 and 03.08.2015. The defence taken by assessee in above replies are summarized as under:- (i) They have not used MS Angles, Bars, Sheets, Beams for laying foundation or for making structural support to capital goods. The machineries already installed are demanding repairs and maintenance periodically. The above inputs are being used when certain part or assembly gets damaged on account of regular use. For example, repeator is a part of rolling mills which needs frequent repairs and maintenance. Simil
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =