2017 (10) TMI 789

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses falling under chapter 17 of the CETA 1985. During the period from November 2013 to March 2014, appellant availed the credit of Rs. 6,48,208/- (i.e. first 50% credit) on the steel item as capital goods and had availed the remaining credit of Rs. 6,48,208/- in the month of April 2014 and further in the month of April 2014, the appellant also had availed the credit of Rs. 2,77,150/- (second 50% credit) on the steel items as capital goods received during the period from April 2013 to October 2013. Further during the period April to November 2014, appellant had also availed credit of Rs. 69,27,231/- (first 50% credit) on the steel items as capital goods during the period from Apr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ding judicial precedent on the same issue. He further submitted that out of the total credit of Rs. 78,52,589/-, credit of Rs. 70,38,452/- was allowed to the appellant being covered in the definition of capital goods. However the credit of Rs. 7,86,974/- was held inadmissible on account of the fact that the appellant has not furnished any record about the usage and the credit of Rs. 27,163/- was also held as inadmissible being availed on the steel item used for general repair / maintenance and fabrication of staircase / platform / walkways making the total amount to Rs. 8,14,137/- being inadmissible credit. The learned counsel further submitted that the credit of Rs. 26,380/- pertains to steel items used for fabrication of staircase, platfo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it of Rs. 1,38,766/- pertains to the steel items which are still lying in their store and are yet to put to use. Since they were not utilised and therefore the information about the actual use of the said items was not provided by them to the Commissioner and therefore the denial of the said credit is premature and is on the basis of mere assumptions and presumptions that the same is used for construction of the factory building / foundation / structure of the machineries. 5. On the other hand learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of the both the parties and perusal of the materials on record, I am of the considered view that as for as CENVAT credit of Rs. 26,380/- is concerned ....