2017 (8) TMI 349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nance of the capital goods dryers and silos machines damage in fine. Alleging that these items do not fall under the definition of capital goods, SCN was issued to them for recovery of credit of Rs. 2,84,322/- during the period from 2006-07 to 2007-08 by issuing a notice dated 24.11.2011. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed alongwith interest and equal amount of penalty. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority. Hence, the present appeal. 3. The Ld. Advocate Shri D. H. Mehta for the appellant submits that on these items used for the repair/maintenance of capital goods. Hence, credit availed on these items are eligible under Rule 2 (K) of CCR, 2004. In support of her contention the Adv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s of Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (supra) and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Alfred Herbert (India) Ltd. (supra) wherein Hon'ble High Court have held that the inputs used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery would be eligible for cenvat credit. The learned departmental representative has cited a contrary judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in the case of Sree Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Tirupati reported in 2012 (278) E.L.T. 167. Since three High Courts as mentioned above, have held that the inputs used for repair and maintenance of plant ....