TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... equipment within the factory of substantial expansion project in the existing chemical plant for manufacture of final product like caustic soda, HCL, Chlorine etc. In reply to the SCN, the appellant have submitted Chartered Engineer's Certificate wherein use of these steel goods and resultant machinery equipment has been certified. The adjudicating authority denied the Cenvat credit on the ground that the manufacture of machinery out of steel items is not supported by evidence of issue slips showing one to one correlation between particular steel items and a particular machine/ equipment. It was also contended by the adjudicating authority that it was not established that equipment have not become permanently attached to earth. Being aggri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the objection of the Ld. Commissioner regarding one to one correlation between particular steel item and a particular machinery is farfetched and impracticable. The appellant have issued slips though without refering to a particular machinery and also maintained all other official records which facts are not even doubted or disputed. As regard Commissioner's finding that in the absence of necessary evidence, the equipments manufactured out of disputed steel have not become permanently attached to earth. He submits that the Ld. Commissioner at the same time admits that the disputed steel was used in the manufacture of machineries, equipments but since the appellants maintained the records showing receipt and issue of steel items and manufact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¢ 2011 (22) STR 299 (T) CCE vs Pushp Enterprises • 2010 (255) ELT 261 (T) Swastik Engineering vs CCE • 2014 (302) ELT 333 (Kar.) CCE vs Swastik Engineering 4. He emphatically submits that apart from merit of the case demand is not sustainable on the ground of time bar also. The credit was availed during July 2009 to August 2009 and SCN was issued on 17.07.2012, hence it is clearly time barred. He submits that the entire details of avaiment of Cenvat Credit on the steel items with name and description have been filed by the appellant along with monthly ER-1 returns and mention of the same was also made in the form of ER-1. He submits that the appellant informed the department vide letter dated 10.08.2007 regar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitation without going into the merit of the case. We find that the appellant vide letter dated 10.08.2007 intimated the department that they intend to avail the cenvat credit in respect of inputs for manufacturing of capital goods/ inputs (consumed capital goods). It is further noticed that the appellant have been filing Annexure along with ER-1 return showing detailed information of invoice No., date, description of inputs, amount of Cenvat credit etc. to the department. In the ER-1 return also, the attachment of this annexure is mentioned. From the annexure of the Cenvat credit, we find that the description of the input has been mentioned. With these information provided to the department, in our view, nothing more than that is required ....