2017 (1) TMI 376

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er V. Padmanabhan : The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 15.11.2011. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant manufactures sponge iron chargeable to central excise duty. They avail Cenvat credit of excise duty paid on inputs and capital goods as per the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. During the period from March 2008 to June 2009 the appellant availed Cen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) vide order in appeal dated 15.11.2011 against which this appeal has been filed. 3. In the above background, we have heard Shri Abhas Mishra, ld. Advocate for the appellant as well as Shri Dharam Singh, ld. DR for the Respondent. 4. The ld. Advocate relied upon several judgements and submitted that the issue has been decided in their favour and hence the order in appeal may be set aside. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted 18.5.2016. The Tribunal has held as follows: "4. At this stage, after hearing both the sides, we find that the Tribunal in the Larger Bench decision in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. reported in 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tribunal-LB) laid down that even if the iron and steel articles were used as supporting structurals, they would not be eligible as modvatable items inasmuch as the amendment whi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5. Apart from the merits of the case, we find the demand to be barred by limitation. Admittedly, the show cause notice stands issued on 12.01.2007, for the period April, 2005 to October, 2005. The lower Authorities have invoked the extended period only on the sole ground that the appellant was aware of the fact that the credit is not admissible and still, they took the credit. We find no apprecia....