2017 (5) TMI 137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d involved and the CENVAT credit involved are given in the table below: Appeal No. Period Involved Credit Involved Penalty E/21045/2014 September 2010 to July 2011 Rs.1,74,120/- Rs.1,74,120/- E/21046/2014 September 2010 to July 2011 Rs.1,86,267/- Rs.1,86,267/- E/21047/2014 April 2010 to July 2010 Rs.8,40,795/- Rs.8,40,795/-   2. For the sake of convenience, we have taken the facts from appeal No. E/21047/2014. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of ferrous castings and patterns classifiable under Chapter Subheading 7325 9910 and 8480 3000 of Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985 and are availing CENVAT credit on various inputs/capital goods and input services in terms of CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. Dur....

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 Orders-in-Original, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) by the impugned orders has rejected the appeals of the appellant, hence the present appeals. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner (A) denying the CENVAT credit mainly on the ground that the security service in first appeal No. E/21045/2014 used at the another unit of the appellant and the capital goods were used at the another unit of the appellant in other two appeals and further, in appeal No. E/21046/2014, 100% credit was availed on capital goods in violation of the Rules, is not sustainable in law. He further submitte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ir premises and after inspection, the appellant will be clearing the said goods on payment of duty and the same has been followed by them but inspite of this, the department has held that the appellant has wrongly availed the CENVAT credit because the capital goods were not used in the registered factory of the appellant. Learned counsel further submitted that as regards the security service in the first appeal, which was received at the second unit. The said security service is an input service and can be received even outside the factory premise and the only condition is that it should be received by the manufacturer. In the present case, both the units belong to the same manufacturer and both are connected and integrated units. Hence den....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....LT 321 (SC) v. Zenith Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2010 (255) ELT 83 (Tri.-Bang.) vi. Vishal Malleables Ltd. vs. CCE: 2009 (234) ELT 286 (Tri.-Ahmd.) vii. Pooja Forge Ltd. vs. CCE: 2006 (196) ELT 18 (Tri.-Del.) viii. Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. CCE: 2007 (219) ELT 960 (Tri.-Del.) 4.2 There is another ground for denying the credit on capital goods in appeal No. E/21046/2014 i.e., the appellant took 100% credit in the first year itself instead of 50% and the entire credit is denied. In regard to this, the appellant submitted that though 100% credit availed was not correct but the credit cannot be denied entirely since in the next financial year, the appellant is entitled to take credit. As regards the interest, the appellan....