TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 970
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow cause notice dated 10th November, 2016 was issued proposing disallowance of cenvat credit of Rs. 6,90,237/-. Plus Rs. 10,69,018/- along with proposal to impose interest and penalty. The show cause notice was adjudicated on contest vide Order-in-Original dated 31st October, 2017 confirming the proposed demand with the appropriation of Rs. 4,83,779/-, reversed prior to issue of show cause notice along with equal amount of penalty under Rule 15(2) of CCR 2004, further order for recovery of interest. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who was pleased to drop the balance demand upholding the aforementioned amounts. 3. Being aggrieved the appellant- assessee, a manufacturer of cement is before t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were essential for security of the establishment, welfare of the employees, which activity cannot be separated from business of manufacture of the final product. 4. So far the cenvat credit taken on mobile van expenses is concerned Rs. 1,30,966/- the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) have observed that the appellant have contended that they are in the business of cement manufacturing and selling in various markets. As the cement marketing is very competitive, to retain themselves in the market they need to carry out lot of sales promotion activities. Accordingly they have hired mobile vans in the market, which go from customer to customer to explain their quality of cement and result of their product to the customers and for also attending to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee is that motor vehicle is a capital goods, as per the definition of the capital goods contained under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The appellate authority has specifically observed that the said input service, i.e., renting of "motor vehicles" have been specifically included except in case where motor vehicle is eligible for Cenvat credit as capital goods. 5. He has however denied the benefit to the assessee on the ground that such motor vehicle are not capital goods for the appellant, Cenvat credit availed on the input services of renting of motor vehicle would not be admissible. 6. However, I find flaw in the above interpretation of appellate authority. He has rightly observed that the exclusion is onl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further states that so far the issue of charging of interest on the cenvat credit taken and reversed under Section 14 is concerned, the appellant is liable to interest on the amount of cenvat credit, they have availed. 7. Having considered the rival contentions so far the first issue of disallowance of cenvat credit of Rs. 44,758/- is concerned, I find the said issue is covered in favour of the appellant by the ruling of Toyota (supra) and accordingly the same is held to be allowable. So far the second issue is concerned of Rs. 1,38,966/-, I find that admittedly appellant have used the motor vans for business purpose/ sales promotion/ marketing, and accordingly they have taken entire cenvat credit of Rs. 1,38,966/-. So far the issue of ....