2012 (10) TMI 933

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....apter 72 of the I Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act and certain other items (single/double leaf doors) falling under Chapter 73 of the said Schedule did not qualify to be capital goods under Rule 2(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004 and hence the credit taken by the party on these items during the above period was inadmissible. Accordingly, an equivalent amount was demanded in terms of Rule 14 of the CCR, 2004 read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, with interest thereon in terms of Rule 14/Section11AB. A penalty was also proposed on the party under Rule 15(1) of the CCR, 2004. In their reply to the show-cause notice, the respondent, inter alia, submitted thus: 3. We would respectfully submit that there is no e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r(Appeals), the party reiterated their written submissions by claiming that the structural items had been used in the manufacture of chimney, receivers and condensers and hence they should be recognized as capital goods for the purpose of CENVAT credit. They also produced photographs to impress the appellate authority. These photographs are available on record before me also. There are three photographs, one of which has been named condenser, another named chimney and the third named receiver. The learned Commissioner(Appeals) was carried away by these photographs as is clear from his statement, which reads thus: Further, the appellant has also produced photographs showing the usage in the fabrication of the chimneys etc. using the same ....