TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 845
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue involved in both the appeals is identical, both the appeals are being disposed of by this order. The details of both appeals are given below:- Appeal No. Period CENVAT Credit Interest Penalty E/21420/2018 10/2008 to 05/2009 Rs.6,33,117/- Not quantified Rs.6,33,311/- u/r 15(1) E/21191/2018 10/2013 to 07/2014 08/2014 to 04/2015 Rs.2,25,281/- Rs.64,047/- -do- Rs.28,935/- u/r 15(1) 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses under Chapter 17 of the CETAT, 1985 and are availing the CENVAT credit facilities on input, capital goods and service tax on input services. During the course of audit, it was noticed that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. Vs. CCE&C [2018(16) GSTL 462 (Chhattisgarh)] v. Thiruarooran Sugars Vs. CESTAT [2017(355) ELt 373 (Mad.)] vi. CCE Vs. Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. [2018(359) ELT 313 (Chhattisgarh)] vii. India Cements Ltd. Vs. CESTAT [2015(321) ELT 209 (Mad.)] viii. Mangalam Cements Ltd. Vs. CCE [2018(360) ELT 737 (Tri. LB)] ix. Commissioner Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. [2010(255) ELT 481 (SC)] 4.2. He further submitted that in the appellant's own case for earlier period, MS coils, HR sheets, coils, plates, angles have held to be eligible for credit, which is reported in 2014(305) ELT 561 (Kar.)]. He further submitted that the issue of eligibility to credit on goods used in the maintenance of plant and machinery is no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded the matter to the original authority to verify the fact of usage of the goods. 5. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellants are not entitled to the CENVAT credit on these goods as the said goods have been used for fabrication of structures and are not parts and accessories of the capital goods. He further submitted that the appellant has not furnished the documentary evidence regarding the usage of the impugned goods for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery. 6. After considering the submissions of both the sides and perusal of material on record and after considering the various judgments relied upon by the appellant, I find that the show-cause notices were issued to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of building or even for fabrication of structures. Further I find that Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Alfred Albert India Ltd. [2010-TIOL-427-HCKAR] held that inputs used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery is eligible for credit. Further in this regard, it is pertinent to mention the case of SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur [2016- TIOL-2769-CESTAT-DEL] wherein the Division Bench of the Tribunal after considering the plethora of judgments on the issue has held in para 8.5 and 8.6 as under:- 8.5. We have considered all the submissions along with case laws including Larger Bench decision of CESTAT in the case of Vandana Global (supra), given by the Revenue; however, in our considered view, in the light ....