TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (4) TMI 81
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Angles, MS Channels, MS Plates, etc. The appellant have been filing ER-1 returns month by month. 2. Audit of the accounts of the appellant was conducted by the audit team of Central Excise in the year 2006 and it was found that the appellant has wrongly availed Cenvat credit on various items like MS Angles, MS Channels, MS Plates, etc. This lead to issue of show cause notice dated 5-3-2008 against the appellant whereby duty demand in respect of inadmissible Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 1,02,458/- was raised and imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules was proposed. 3. The appellant contested the show cause notice wherein he took the plea that the goods in question were used in renovation/repairing of pusher ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l furnace. The second plea taken by the appellant is on the point of limitation. In this regard ld. Shri Narasimhan has contended that undisputedly the demand has been raised in respect of period up to October, 2006 whereas the show cause notice was issued after the expiry of one year from October, 2006 on 5-3-2008. It is contended that the appellant throughout have been submitting ER-1 returns along with annexures detailing the Cenvat credit availed by him. Therefore, it can be safely inferred the department was having full knowledge of the fact as such there was no occasion for invoking extended period of limitation when there was no suppression of concealment of fact on the part of the appellant. 7. Shri Nagesh Pathak, ld. AR, for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the ledger accounts of the Appellant itself shows the items in question as used in factory shed/building or office premises I do not find any reason to treat them as used in repairing/renovation of plant and machinery as claimed by Appellant without any documentary or corroboratory evidence in support of their argument. The appellant at the personal hearing stage had forwarded a Central Excise Certificate dated 20-6-2006 certifying the use of MS angles, MS Flats, rails, MS Channels and MS plates consumed for repairing at pusher oil furnace. On going through the Central Excise Certificate I find that the said certificate is totally silent on to the point of any relation between the quantity used and the invoices in question and accordingly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rail section. The certificate is vague and do not specifically certify, whether goods in question were actually used for repairing of pusher oil furnace. Since the appellant is claiming Cenvat credit on aforesaid goods onus of proving aforesaid so-called inputs were used for manufacture in or in relation to manufacture of final products on the appellant. The appellant has not produced evidence of the persons who did work of repair of furnace nor he has produced bills or account for the said repair work claimed to have been undertaken by him. Since the appellant has failed to lead any evidence in this regard, we do not find any fault in the finding of the appellant based upon the entries contained in the ledger account. Thus, we have no hesi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of final products whether directly or indirectly and whether contained in the final product or not and includes lubricating oils, greases, cutting oils, coolants, accessories of the final products cleared along with the final product, goods used as paint, or as packing material, or as fuel, or for generation of electricity or steam used in or in relation to manufacture of final products or for any other purpose, within the factory of production." On reading of the above, it is evident that in order to be eligible for availing and utilising Cenvat credit, the assessee is required to establish that the goods in question were used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. We have already concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals....