2016 (8) TMI 1060

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es One Lakh Ninety Three Thousand and Twelve only) has been disallowed by the first appellate authority and it has also been upheld that equivalent amount of penalty, imposed by the Adjudicating authority under Rule 15 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, is proper. 2. Shri Amit Kumar (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the Appellant argued that out of the said credit denied by the first appellate authority an amount of Rs. 1,15,108/-(Rupees One Lakh Fifteen Thousand One Hundred and Eight only) pertain to certain services availed by the appellant regarding construction and repair of the workers  quarters. It is the case of the appellant that maintenance of staff quarters at a remote ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad High Court s Order in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. UOI [2014 (299) ELT 431(All.)]  amendment carried out under Notification No.16/2009-CE(NT) dated 07.07.2009 is only clarificatory in nature and will be applicable to the period prior to amendment. He made the Bench go through para 10 and 11 of this case law decided by Allahabad High Court. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The first issue involved in these proceedings is whether Cenvat Credit with respect to maintenance and repair services of the staff quarters of the Appellant will be eligible to the Appellant. The second issue is whether Cenvat Credit with respect to items used in making support structures of the machinery will be admissible to the Appel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....held in para 10 and 11 as follows:- "10. We did not find any error in the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority and the Tribunal that there was no dispute about the facts that in fabrication of capital goods Cenvat credit was taken on M.S. Angles, Channels, Plates, etc. The appellant, however, neither specifically intimated the department at any point of time nor the details of the items of capital goods fabricated was declared in the returns ER-1 filed by appellants. The drawing and designs of the capital goods claimed to have been fabricated along with the plant and the material used was not produced before the Adjudicating Authority, on the basis of which it could be ascertained as to how much quantity of structural st....