2019 (3) TMI 1145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are engaged in the manufacture of sugar and molasses falling under Chapter 17 of CETA, 1985 and are availing CENVAT credit on capital goods, input and input services as per the provisions of CCR, 2004. Department entertained a view that the appellant has availed irregular CENVAT credit on various items of iron and steel. On these allegations three SCNs were issued demanding ineligible CENVAT credit totaling Rs. 66,91,582/- on the items falling under Chapter 72 & 73 during the period from January 2007 to March 2008. After following the due process, the original authority vide Order-in-Original dated 20.09.2018 allowed the CENVAT credit of Rs. 26,35,224/- and disallowed and confirmed the demand of CENVAT credit of Rs. 46,56,358/- along with ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed for fabrication on capital goods/structure of capital goods is admissible as capital goods as well as inputs. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: • Vandana Global Ltd. v. CCE, 2018 (5) TMI 305 (Chh.). • Thiru Arooran Sugars v. CCE, 2017 (355) ELT 3 (Mad.). • Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd. v. CCE, 2015 (39) STR 726 (Guj.). • Gem Sugars Ltd. v. CCE, 2019 (2) TMI 556. • Indian Sugar Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CCE, 2018 (1) TMI 206. • Hindustan Calcined Metals Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, 2017 (12) TMI 703. • CCE v. Suryadev Alloys & Power (P) Ltd., 2018 (3) TMI 986. • Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. v. CCE, 2018 (3) TMI 606.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (5) TMI 305. Further, I find that in the appellant's own case for the earlier period on an identical issue, the CESTAT, Chennai after relying upon various decisions of the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant by setting aside the order of the Commissioner. Further, I find that the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Singhal Enterprises (supra) in Para 15 has held as under: "15. We find that the controversy can be laid to rest by making a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., 2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered an identical issue of steel plates and MS channels used in the fabrication of chimney for di....