TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 798
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfined to this amount of Rs. 5,71,401/-. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods viz., SGCI inserts and other castings falling under Chapter 73 of the CETA, 1985. During the course of verification of the records by the audit, it was noticed that the appellants have availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 16,32,578/- on several steel items such as MS plates, angles, bars and rods, rounds, sheets, flats etc., during the month of March 2007 and subsequently apportioned the CENVAT credit of 65% i.e., Rs. 10,61,175/- as credit relating to steel used in the building and 35% i.e., Rs. 5,71,403/- as credit on capital goods. It appeared that the credit availed by the appellants on the aforesai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned order is passed contrary to the binding judicial precedents on the issue. He further submitted that no credit was availed on steel used in the manufacture of supporting structure but only on the steel used in the manufacture of capital goods and they have informed the department about availment of credit of 35% on the total quantity of steel purchased which was used in the manufacture of capital goods based on the Central Excise certificate. He further submitted that appellant have not availed CENVAT credit on 65% of the steel used in building and supporting structures. He further submitted that the extended period of limitation has been wrongly invoked on the part of the appellant. He also submitted that the appellant have used the st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....limitation. The show-cause notice in this case was issued on 16.12.2011 and the CENVAT credit was availed by the appellant during the month of March 2007 and the appellant has informed the department in the ER1 returns about the use of the steel in the building as well as for raising the capital goods. In support of this submission that the entire demand is barred by time and there is no suppression on the part of the appellant, appellant has relied upon the following decisions: * Kushal Fertilizers P. Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2008 (238) ELT 21 (SC) * CCE Vs. Punjab Laminates P. Ltd.: 2006 (202) ELT 578 S(C) * Primella Sanitary Products Pvt. Ltd.: 2005 (184) ELT 117 (SC) * Sri Ranga Industries Vs. CCE: 1994 (72) ELT 638 (Tri.) approved by Supr....