TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 460
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penalty. The impugned demand arises from denial of CENVAT credit on numerous steel items such as M.S. Pipes, Chains, Plates, Flats, Angles, Channels, Sheets, Rods & Beams, etc. which were claimed by the assessee to be capital goods falling under Rule 2(a)(A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and found by the adjudicating authority to have been used in the fabrication of supporting structures. The impugned order was passed in adjudication of three show-cause notices, one of which invoked the extended period of limitation on the alleged ground of suppression of facts with intent to avail undue CENVAT credit. We are told that the amount of CENVAT credit denied to the assessee for the normal period is around Rs. 50.65 lakhs. 2. The submission of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd., this Tribunal doubted correctness of the aforesaid decision and referred the issue to a Larger Bench. It was only in 2010 that the Larger Bench held against grant of CENVAT credit as 'capital goods' on steel items used in fabrication of structural supports and civil foundation. Thus, during most part of the dispute, the appellant had good reason to maintain the aforesaid belief. In the circumstances, no suppression of material fact with intent to claim undue benefit could be attributed to them. (e) In respect of steel items used in civil foundation and supporting structures, CENVAT credit was not taken at all (to the extent of Rs. 13 crores) and this fact was also placed before the learned Commissioner. (f) CBEC issued a Circul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....how-cause notice. (c) From the impugned order, it is evident that the reply submitted by the party in 2010 and written submissions filed by them later on in 2012 were considered by the adjudicating authority and, hence, there can be no grievance of negation of natural justice. (d) If there was any conflict of decisions on the vital issue during the earlier part of the dispute, that conflict was resolved by the Tribunals Larger Bench in 2010 and, hence, the appellant could not have had any doubt since then. The particulars furnished by them along with monthly Returns were not enough for the department to find out that they had taken CENVAT credit on steel items used in the fabrication of structural support to machinery and, hence, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y opposed to the contention raised by his client before the adjudicating authority in the first reply to the show-cause notice. Prima facie, this conduct of the party is self-defeating. We have also carefully examined the decisions cited before us. The Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Vandana Global Ltd. case is, prima facie, applicable to the facts stated by the appellant in their first reply to the show-cause notice and, consequently, CENVAT credit cannot be claimed by them on the steel items in question under Rule 2(a)(A). The decision of the apex court in Saraswathi Sugar Mills case is to the effect that a supporting structure for any capital goods cannot be considered as component or part of that capital goods and hence would not qu....