TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pital goods Cenvat credit of Rs. 7,67,824/- but neither the duplicate copy nor the original copy of the invoice on the basis of which they took the credit was available with them. (D) Further, the Noticee took Cenvat credit of Rs. 5,93,453/- on aluminum sections/profile falling under Chapter 76 and G.P. Sheets/ G.P. Coil falling under Chapter 72 under the category of Capital Goods. Revenue felt that the items namely Aluminum Sections/ Profile and G.P. Sheets/ G.P. Coil are neither Capital Goods nor components, spares and accessories of capital goods specified at (i) and (ii) of Rule 2(a) (A) of the Cenvat Rules. 4. A show cause notice was issued which was adjudicated by the Adjudicating Authority resulting in confirmation of demand of Rs. 15,16,552/- along with interest and imposition of penalty of equivalent amount. In appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, interest and penalty relating to (A), (B) & (D) above, while the demand relating to (C) of Rs. 7,67,824/- was not sustained. In this appeal, the appellants are contesting the demand of Rs. 5,93,453/- on account of Cenvat credit on G.P. Sheets/ G.P. Coils (Category D) and the imposed penalty of Rs. 7,48,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. The Ld. A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and stated that the definition of capital goods given under Rule 2 (a) of the Cenvat Rules, the "Plant" as well as "components, spare parts and accessories of plant" are not covered in the list of eligible capital goods for the purpose of taking credit. In the instant case, GP Sheet/Coils were used in the humidification Plant in the factory of the Noticee are neither Capital Goods as specified under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Rules, nor are they components, spares and accessories of the goods specified at (i) and (ii) of Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Rules. He relied upon the case law of CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Moderen Steels Ltd.- 2007 (219) E.L.T. 423 (Tri. Del.) and stated that in the new definition of capital goods "components, spare parts and accessories of plants" have been omitted and therefore, the case law cited by the Ld. Advocate were not applicable. The position had been made amply clear in the judgment of CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Modern Steels Ltd. (supra). 7. Heard the rival submissions and examined the relevant records. 8. I find that the appellants are claiming the benefit of Cenvat Cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ately omitted in Rule 2(b) from the definition of "capital goods" then there would be no scope for considering the CTD bars, angles etc. falling under Chapter 72, as the components, spares or accessories of EOT crane or furnace because both these machines were complete and self-contained). 8. It is significant to note that the word "plant" was omitted from the explanation defining "capital goods" in Rule 57Q(1) by the substituted explanation, which was brought into force from 23-7-1996. It will also be noted, that in Rule 2(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules defining "capital goods", which applied in respect of the period relevant to the present case, namely, April 2003 to October 2003, expression defined in Rule 2(b) of the CENVAT Rules, "capital goods" means :- "(i) all goods falling under Chapter 82, Chapter 84, Chapter 85, Chapter 90, heading No. 68.02 and sub-heading No. 6801.10 of the First Schedule to the Tariff Act; (ii) Pollution control equipment; (iii) components, spares and accessories of the goods specified at (i) and (ii) above; (iv) moulds and dies; (v) refractories and refractory materials; (vi) tubes and pipes and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to claim the Cenvat Credit correctly and appropriately squarely lies on the appellants under Rule 9(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Having sufficient balance is no defence against intent to evade duty. The assessee has relied upon the Tribunal Order dt. 15.02.2016 (supra). In that case the assessee had reversed the Cenvat credit immediately, which is not the case here. The Cenvat credit was not reversed even when asked by the Department. The decision in the case of N.R. Aggarwal Industries (supra) is not applicable as assessee has not been able to show any reason for bona-fide belief at the time. In the case of N.R. Aggarwal (supra), the assessee had a favourable decision in his own case which led to assessee holding a bona-fide belief. There has been no such decision in favour of the assessee. The decision in the case of Aarti Industries Ltd. (supra) is of no relevance as the same pertains to structural material used in fabrication of storage tank, while the issue in instant case is inclusion of "Plant" in the definition of capital goods. 12. In a similar situation where inadmissible credit was detected in Audit scrutiny CCE, Ghaziabad Vs. Rathi Steel & Power Ltd. 2015 (321) ELT....