2019 (3) TMI 779

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uperintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 21.9.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A), whereby the Commissioner (A) has partially allowed the appeal of the appellant and denied the CENVAT Credit of Rs. 2,94,619/- against which the appellant is in appeal. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellants....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- and ordered for recovery along with applicable interest and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,95,505/- under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who rejected the CENVAT Credit of Rs. 2,94,619/- pertaining to control and transmission of power at switchyard on the ground that the location of the said switchyard is not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o manufacturing of their final product. He further submitted that the appellant has produced the copies of the invoices based on which the credit was availed and also produced the certificate of Chartered Engineer certifying the location and function of the switchyard. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions: • CCE vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd.: 2010 (20) STR ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... disallowed the CENVAT credit of Rs. 5,97,505/-. On first appeal, the learned Commissioner (A) has rejected the credit of Rs. 2,94,619/- only on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove the location of the switchyard. Further, I find that the Commissioner (A) has not considered the certificate of the Chartered Engineer which clearly certify the location and the function of switchyard. Fur....