2014 (3) TMI 346

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER This application filed by the appellant seeks waiver and stay against demand of Rs. 45,05,150/- being the Cenvat credit denied to them for the period July, 2004 to March, 2009 and equal amount of penalty imposed on them. After perusing the records and hearing both sides, we find that the credit in question was denied on steel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....allenging the demand both on merits and on the ground of limitation. On merits, they have an alternative contention also at this stage which is to the effect that the aforesaid steel items would also qualify as 'inputs' for the purpose of Cenvat credit. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the second Explanation to the definition of input under Rule 2(k) of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....capital goods. 3. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is true that the appellant was consistently claiming Cenvat credit on the aforesaid items by treating them as capital goods falling under Rule 2(a)(A) ibid. They took the credit in question in RG 23C Part II, 50% thereof in one financial year and the rest in a subsequent year. At no stage before did they make any ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... holding that the steel items were used in the manufacture of capital goods and, hence, by virtue of the aforesaid Explanation to the definition given under Rule 2(k), such steel items could be considered as "inputs". In this prima facie view of the matter, we have found a good case for waiver and stay. The Hon'ble High Court in the cited case held that manufacture of capital goods was different f....