TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 840
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....structure Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as AIL) and Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "CIAL") are also manufacturers of sponge iron. During 2006-2007, M/s. AIL and CIAL entered into lease agreement with the appellant under which the plants of AIL and CIAL were taken on lease by the appellant. At the time of lease agreement, AIL and CIAL issued invoices with regard to the payment of an amount equal to the capital goods Cenvat credit availed by them in respect of the capital goods installed in their respective plants, on the basis of which, the appellant took capital goods Cenvat credit of 50% of the amount during the period 2006-07 and thereafter credit of balance 50% of the amount was taken during next financial year 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0.07.2001 by which the entire Cenvat credit demand as made in the show cause notice was confirmed along with interest and besides this, penalty of equal amount was imposed on them. The Commissioner confirmed this demand invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by alleging that credit was irregularly taken by suppressing relevant facts from the department. Against the above order of the Commissioner, this appeal along with stay application has been filed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Shri B.L. Narsimahan, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that Cenvat credit in respect of capital goods cleared on lease basis is permissible in view of the provisions of Rule 4(3) of Cenvat Credit R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om this date, in any case, the capital goods Cenvat credit in the account of AIL and CAL would stand transferred to the appellant. He, therefore, pleaded that the appellant have a strong prima facie case and hence, the requirement of pre-deposit of Cenvat credit demand, interest and penalty may be waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal. 4. Shri Sunil Kumar, ld. Sr. Departmental Representative opposed the stay application reiterating the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order and emphasized that - (a) the addresses of AIL and CIAL are same as that of the appellant, which shows that they are related companies; (b) the value column ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; "Cenvat credit in respect of the capital goods shall be allowed to a manufacturer, provider of output services even if the capital goods are acquired by him on lease, hire purchase, or loan agreement from a financing company." M/s. AIL and CIAL are admittedly not finance companies but are manufacturing companies. 7. We are, therefore, of the prima facie view that the availment of capital goods Cenvat credit in this case by the appellant was not correct, as the words "financing company" in Rule 4(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules cannot be read "as any person". 8. As regards the question of limitation, though while AIL and CIAL had intimated the leasing of their plant and machinery to the appellant and also the payment of am....