2015 (10) TMI 2565

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd steel articles on the ground that the said goods cannot be considered as input for the purpose of manufacture of the final products.  The matter was adjudicated vide order dated 26.09.2012, wherein the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise has confirmed the demand for Rs. 2,51,920/- along with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.  In appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 11.03.2014 has upheld the demand confirmed in the adjudication order.  Hence this present appeal before the Tribunal. 2.  Sh. Vipin Upadhyay, the Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that the disputed goods have been used for fabrication, repair and maintenance of the capital goods installed in the facto....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the appellant for repair, maintenance and fabrication of the machines/ machineries installed in the plant.  The cenvat benefit has been denied on the sole ground that there is no record to show that the disputed goods have been used for manufacture of specific parts/ accessories of the capital goods.  I find from the purchase requisition slips available in the file that the appellant had clearly mentioned the requirement of the disputed goods for the intended purpose i.e. for repair and maintenance of various machines, namely, kiln, Clinker stock pipes etc.  Since the machines/ machineries where the disputed goods have been used are confirming to the classification of the goods under chapter 84 and 85 of the Central Excis....