TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 947
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red capital goods from their principals M/s. ITC Ltd. for carrying out the job work on behalf of M/s. ITC Ltd. on lease basis. The respondent were paying lease rent towards the use of capital goods to M/s. ITC Ltd., The show cause notice was issued proposing disallowance of the credit on such capital goods, on the ground that though the respondent has acquired the capital goods on lease but not from the financing company but from the M/s. ITC Ltd. who is not a financing company. The original authority has disallowed the credit on the ground that the requirement of Rule 4(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules was not made by the respondent as the capital goods were not procured from financing company. Aggrieved by the original order, the respondent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e capital goods so supplied by M/s. ITC Ltd. is not a financing company. The Revenue has heavily interpreted the provision of Rule 4(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004 which is reproduced below: "Rule 4 (3) The CENVAT credit in respect of the capital goods shall be allowed to a manufacturer, provider of output service even if the capital goods are acquired by him on lease, hire purchase or loan agreement, from a financing company". On reading of the above Rule, I am of the view that whether the capital goods supplied by a financing company or otherwise, it is not significant for deciding the admissibility of the Cenvat Credit. So long the capital goods was received by the respondent and used n the manufacture of goods, credit should be a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce to the appellant Revenue to carry forward its case, for, it cannot be said that in the said case there has been conclusive decision as is being assumed by the appellant revenue. Further having regard to the various decisions relied on behalf of the respondent assessee the decision relied on behalf of the appellant revenue is of little efficacy from position emerging from decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Marmagoa Steel Ltd. (supra) and other orders passed by this Court as well as decisions of Gujrat and Punjab & Haryana High Courts. From the above judgment, it is very clear that the present respondent is on a better footing as they have taken the capital goods from the principal manufacturer and against which they are paying th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n then the Department continued to tolerate the continued wrong availment without issuing Show-cause notice-Notices for the normal period. In the light of the knowledge of the Department, the allegation that the facts were suppressed by the assessee lacks force. For invocation of the extended period, suppression of the facts has to be "willful". Neither RIL nor appellant had claimed depreciation on the duty portion of the capital goods. On the face of these statements "intent" is not visible. Therefore, the demand is barred by limitation [1995 (75) E.L.T. 721 (S.C.); 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) relied on [paras 38, 39, 42] Whereas in the case of German Remedies Ltd. Vs. CCE, Goa the Hon'ble CESTAT hold that , We have considered the su....