TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 74
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue argued that under self removal procedure the onus is on the respondents to satisfy about the correct cenvat credit admissible to him. The copies of credit taking documents are not required to be filed alongwith the ER-1 returns filed by an assessee and no such details were made available to the Revenue alongwith the periodical returns that appellant was aware of the fact that items on which credit was taken were not capital goods. That inadmissibility credit on items like Channels, Beams, H.R./M.S Plates, Angles, Bars, Molykote, Perlite Rigid insulations etc., was detected by the local Audit Party on the basis of Excise records and other cenvat credit account/registers maintained by the appellant. It was his case that as inadmissibili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o evade the payments of duty. That in the case of Jaiprakash Industries Ltd [2002 (146) ELT 481(SC)] also Supreme Court held that a bonafide doubt as to the non-dutiable nature of goods was sufficient for the assessee to challenge the demand on the point of limitation. iv) That the issue of admissibility of cenvat credit on disputed items involved in the present proceedings was settled only by the judgements of larger bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd [2010(253)ELT.440 (Tri.LB)] which is also challenged in the Jharkhand High Court. That before this larger bench judgment there were case laws on the subject in favour of the Respondent : a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts stated in the OIO No 13/Addl,Com/2007 dt 15/6/2007 the issue involved was use of certain items for erecting structure of plant and machinery. In reply to the show cause notice and during the course of personal hearing it was argued by the Respondent that it is a settled legal position that goods used in relation to manufacture and erection of plant and machinery were capital goods covered under the cenvat scheme. Respondents relied upon the following case laws before the Adjudicating Authority: i) India Cement Ltd vs CCE Trichy [2004 (175) ELT 4767 (Tri. Chennai) ii) Mukund Ltd vs CCE Belgam [2005 (182) ELT 61 (Tri. Bangaluru) &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pieces amounts to manufacture. Accordingly, there was bona fide doubt as to whether or not such an activity could attract the payment of duty and the dealer-respondent did not apply for licence. Once the aforesaid factual position is clear then the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. (supra) would fully apply to the case in hand. The view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court as correctly quoted by the Tribunal reads thus :- In this case, there was a divergent view of the various High Courts whether crushing of bigger stones or boulders into smaller pieces amounts to manufacture. In view of the divergent views, of the various High Courts, ....