2013 (2) TMI 724

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eriod from December, 2009 to June, 2010} is correct is the question falling for consideration in these appeals. 2. Appellant Company, who is the manufacturer of cement, have availed Cenvat Credit of duty paid on M.S. Rod, Sheets, Channel, Plate and Flat etc., during the period of April, 2009 to November, 2009 and December, 2009 to June, 2010 as capital goods. The Department put the appellant on notice stating that those items are not covered under the definition of "capital goods" in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to be eligible for availing duty credit. The show cause notices further proposed to recover the credit taken with interest besides invoking penalty under relevant sections and rules of Central Excise. The Deputy Commissione....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the issue before the same was settled by the Larger Bench of CESTAT, Delhi in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur [2010-TIOL-624-CESTAT-Del.-LB] . In view of this the order of the Lower Authority demanding an amount of Rs. 1,44,390/- towards the wrongly availed credit on M.S. Rod, Sheets, M.S. Channel, M.S. Plate and Flat etc., as Capital goods with interest under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Sections 11A & 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is liable to be upheld. As regards the imposition of penalty by the Lower Authority the same is set aside following the ratio of the Final Order No. 1126/10, dated 25-10-2010 of the Hon'ble CESTAT, Chennai." The other Order of the Appellate Authority dated 29-4-20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellate Tribunal - CESTAT in Appeal No. E/158/2011 was party allowed by the Order dated 23-3-2012 and the appeal in Appeal No. E/183/2012 was dismissed by the order dated 1-6-2012. Before the CESTAT, the appellant fairly    stated that a major portion of the demand is in relation to the use of steel items         of fabrication of supporting structures and the same is payable in view of the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri.-LB). In so far as the portion of demand amounting to Rs. 32,668/- which relates to fabrication of machinery items, appellant requested that the matter be remanded to the original authority....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e by the appellant in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. v. Commissioner [2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri.-LB)]. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the light of the decision of the Division Bench in C.M.A. No. 3101 of 2005 [2014 (305) E.L.T. 558 (Mad.)], the assessee's own case, claim for Cenvat. credit of duty paid on MS rods, sheets, panel, plates and flat etc., is available to the assessee. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the decision in C.M.A. No. 3101 of 2005 is identical as that of the present case and the matter may be remitted to CESTAT for consideration of the matter afresh in the Light of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Commissioner ....