TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal overturns denial of Cenvat credit on disputed goods, emphasizing legislative intent</h1> <h3>M/s The General Manager (Finance) Versus CCE & ST, Raipur</h3> M/s The General Manager (Finance) Versus CCE & ST, Raipur - TMI Issues:Denial of Cenvat credit on disputed goods for the period March, 2011.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in mining and selling coal, availed Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods for discharging Central Excise duty on finished products. The dispute arose concerning the availment of Cenvat credit on disputed goods. The show cause notice alleged improper use of certain items as civil structures and for support of capital goods, leading to the denial of Cenvat credit amounting to &8377;1,06,90,179. The Commissioner confirmed the disallowance along with interest and imposed a penalty, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appeal before the Tribunal.During the hearing, the appellant's consultant detailed the usage of disputed goods in the factory premises, demonstrating their essential role in the mining activities. The appellant cited relevant judgments to support their case. In contrast, the respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned order, arguing that the disputed goods did not qualify as inputs or capital goods, thus not eligible for Cenvat credit.The Tribunal observed that the disputed goods were integral to the manufacturing process of various final products and were not excluded from the definition of inputs. It was noted that the denial of Cenvat credit based on technicalities, such as the registration status of the supplier, was unjustified. Emphasizing the legislative intent behind Cenvat credit rules to prevent cascading effects, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the credit since the disputed goods had undergone duty payment and were used in production.Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and ruling in favor of the appellant.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal principles, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 