2016 (3) TMI 127

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and capital goods. After an audit of their records the Revenue proceeded against the appellant to deny the credit taken on various capital goods acquired by them on lease. The credit was sought to be denied on the ground that in terms of Rule 4 by Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 only when the capital goods are received by the manufacturer on lease from a financial company such credit is admissible. Since the entities from whom the appellant received the said capital goods are engaged in industrial activity and cannot be called as financing company, the Cenvat Credit is not admissible. In these set of facts, proceedings were initiated resulting in the impugned order. Aggrieved from the said order the appellant is before us. 2. The appellant ple....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....T 301 (LB) to contend that the dutiability as well as admissibility of credit on various steel structures are to be decided at the stage when the iron and steel items are in a movable state and have not formed part of the immovable supporting structures. In any case the absence of specific finding either on the type of ineligible capital goods or the quantity of ineligible credit, the findings cannot be sustained. 4. Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the lower authorities and held that the provisions of Rule 4(3) will apply only when the capital goods are acquired from a financing company. 5. Heard both the sides and examined the records. 6. The main point for decision is as to whether Cenvat Credit availed by the appellant on vari....