Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2013 (12) TMI 929

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w that such goods would not qualify as "capital goods" within the meaning of the definition of the said expression "capital goods" in Rule 2(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and, therefore, two show-cause notices dated 31.03.2009 (for Rs.12,29,244) and 31.03.2010 (for Rs. 32,33,368/-) were issued and the same adjudicated and demands confirmed as mentioned above were confirmed along with interest and penalties. On appeal with Commissioner (Appeals) the applicants did not get any relief. 2. Aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals), the applicant filed this appeal along with a stay application for total waiver of the pre-deposit of duty, interest and penalties. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that at the time of takin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as beyond the normal period of limitation. 4. Opposing the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicants the authorised representative for the Revenue submits that the steel items that were purported to be used by the applicants for plant upgradation and structural work in line-2 Kiln upgradation, Coal Handling System and Cement Bulk Loading System etc., at their factory were not used in the manufacture of any plant and machinery. The claim was not supported by facts. His contention is that these goods were used in civil construction only and now a distinction is now sought to be made through by play of words. He also submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....planation to Rule 57Q as a capital goods. The Tribunal referred to its own decision in Malvika Steel Limited's case [1998 (97) E.L.T. 530 (Tribunal)] and without semblance of any discussion, has partly allowed the assessee's appeal. In view of our findings and the conclusion in the earlier part of the judgment, we cannot agree with the reasoning of the Tribunal." 5. He also points out that the Tribunal and Hon'ble Supreme Court had decided that such goods used for constructing structurals are not eligible for CENVAT credit. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions:    (i) Madras Cements Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy, reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 106 (Tri.-Chennai).    (ii) Madras Cements ....