Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2011 (12) TMI 446

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ration (CWC). It was taken on the strength of invoices issued by CWC to Metal Scrap Trading Corporation Ltd. (MSTCL), Kolkata. In a show cause notice issued on 15-9-2008, the Department proposed to recover the above amount of credit for the period from August 2006 to February 2007. This show cause notice was issued on the basis of the facts collected by the auditors of the Department in the first week of August 2007. It invoked the extended period of limitation alleging that the party had suppressed the material facts with intent to avail undue benefit of Cenvat credit. In adjudication of this show cause notice, the original authority confirmed the demand of duty with interest thereon and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2000/- on the assessee. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spondent. 3. After considering the submissions, I note that, though the plea of limitation was not raised by the party before the Adjudicating Authority, it was raised before the Appellate Authority. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the plea of the assessee. In the present appeal, it is not the case of the appellant that it was not open, in law, to the lower Appellate Authority to consider the plea of limitation raised for the first time. I have also found no fetter for the lower Appellate Authority in this regard. On a perusal of the relevant factual materials, I find that the relevant facts were supplied by the assessee to the Department way back in June 2006. Further, facts were supplemented in subsequent letters addressed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, etc. were used in the manufacture of components/spares/accessories of chimneys and that MS rounds, channels etc. were used in the manufacture of components/spares/accessories of stoves. It was contended that, as chimneys and stoves were 'capital goods' falling under Rule 2(a)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the various items used in the manufacture of their components/spares/accessories would qualify to be 'inputs' within the definition of this term under Rule 2(k) read with Explanation 2 thereto. The Explanation referred to by the assessee reads thus: "'input' includes goods used in the manufacture of capital goods which are further used in the factory of the manufacturer". The Adjudicating Authority merely held that MS rounds, she....