2016 (2) TMI 585

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... input for the capital goods manufactured within the factory. Credit taken by the appellant on the disputed goods was objected by the Central Excise Department through initiation of the show cause proceedings, which culminated in the Adjudication Order. Cenvat Demand confirmed in the said order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order. Hence, this present appeal before this Tribunal. 2. Ld. Advocate Sh. Abhishek Jaju appearing for the Appellant, submits that the disputed goods have been used as input for the thermal system pipeline support and bridging, which are the capital goods for the appellant. He further submits that the angles, channels and steel sheets have been used for making the tanks and its base in the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order, submits that part of the demand confirmed in the impugned order is within one year from the relevant date, and as such, the SCN issued on 16.04.2010 is not barred by limitation of time. He further submits that since the appellant has categorically stated that the inputs are building material, whose eligibility to cenvat credit has been denied in the definition clause of 'Input Service' and also by the CBEC in the circular dated 15.1.2002; the SCN has been rightly issued by invoking the extended period of limitation as contained in the proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records. 4. The dispute regarding eligibility of cenvat credit on the....