2016 (3) TMI 522

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t availed Amount (Rs.) 1. Supporting structures 11,74,206/- 2. Procurement of supporting structures 48,000/- 3. Welding electrodes 28,252/-   Total 12,50,458/-   2. The appellant has contended that: (i) amount of Rs. 11,74,206/- appearing in the above table is Cenvat credit on 255.300 MT and 131.930 MT of steel which was alleged to have been used for supporting structure. 255.300 MT of structural steel was procured under non-cenvatable invoices and no credit was taken in respect thereof and it has been confirmed by Supdt., Central Excise, Raigarh vide letter dated 20.12.2014 cited in para 5.5. of the impugned order. It has also been certified by C.A. certificate also. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....determining the duty sought to be evaded under Section 11A(2) of the Act which is the mandatory requirement under Section 11AC. Instead of paying 25% of the penalty within the stipulated time, the assessee has chosen to file an appeal against imposition of penalty under Section 11AC and the Tribunal has permitted the assessee to pay 25% penalty beyond the time prescribed under the proviso to Section 11AC which is not permissible in law. 4. I have considered the contentions of both sides. I find that the Supdt. Central Excise vide letter dated 20.12.2014 has taken note of the intimation of the appellant that it had not availed Cenvat credit on 255.300 MT of steel items used for the supporting structures as it purchased the same under non-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ood to include steel used supporting structures within their ambit. Bona fide belief is a belief of reasonable person operating in an appropriate environment. Thus the contention of the appellant regarding bonafide belief that credit on 131.930 MT was admissible is untenable. The appellant has conceded inadmissibility of Cenvat credit of Rs. 48,000/- As regards the welding electrodes it has been held by CESTAT in the case of Vikram Cement Vs. CCE, Indore - 2009 (242) ELT 545 (T) that credit on welding electrodes is not available when used for repair. The appellant has only stated that some of these electrodes may have been used for manufacturing capital goods but has conceded that it has no evidence thereof. Therefore the demand relating to....