Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of Cenvat credit taken on steel items claimed to have been used in fabrication of capital goods.
Analysis: Steel items such as angles, channels, plates and sheets are not capital goods by themselves and could qualify for Cenvat credit only if shown to have been used in fabrication of capital goods for use in the factory. The burden of establishing admissibility of credit lay on the manufacturer, and this burden could be discharged by contemporaneous evidence such as communication to the department, technical certificates, designs, or reflection of such fabrication in ER-1 returns. On the record, the claimed use was not supported by such evidence, the RG-1 extract did not establish use of the disputed steel items for the relevant period, and the appellant therefore failed to show a prima facie case for complete waiver.
Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to full waiver of pre-deposit. A conditional waiver was granted only on deposit of Rs. 50,000, with balance recovery stayed upon compliance.