Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2019 (5) TMI 254

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the impugned period appellant has availed credit of tax paid on profile sheets which has been installed above the machines used to manufacture the finished goods considering the same as input. The Department entertained the view that the appellants are not entitled to cenvat credit on profile sheets and has wrongly taken the credit. On these allegation a show-cause notice dated 28.10.2014 was issued to the appellant demanding wrongly availed cenvat credit of Rs. 17,83,063/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand and Sixty Three only) on profile sheets during the period from April 2012 to August 2012 along with applicable interest and imposition of penalty. After following the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....production by the manufacturer. He also submits that after the amendment in the definition of 'input' w.e.f. 01.04.2011, all goods which are used in the factory of production by the manufacturer as input. He further submits that the intention of the legislature to allow credit on all goods used within the factory by the manufacturer except when such goods have absolutely no connection with the manufacture of the goods. He also submits that in the appellant's case profile sheets have been used to comply with the statutory requirement of pollution control laws and accepted environmental clearance prerequisites that the machineries cannot be left open to air in case of hazardous process and accordingly usage of profile sheets cannot be regarde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n filing the returns regularly showing the cenvat credit availed to the jurisdictional authorities then it cannot be alleged suppression against him. Further the appellant in order to prove the usage of the profile sheets has filed a report of the Structural Engineer which shows the usage of profile sheets and as per the said report the Steel Roof Sheets are mandatory to cover the processing/manufacturing area so that the rain water should not enter and come in contact with Molten Iron thereby avoid the explosion. Further the certificate certified that there will be lot of heat and dust generated during steel melting and casting process. Therefore there is a need to provide Louvers inside walls and Ridge Monitor truss which are possible onl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anufacturer as input. Further I also note that in the present case the profile sheets have been used to comply with the statutory requirement of Pollution Control Laws and if they are not used and the machineries are left open in the area it may cause hazardous and therefore the usage of the profile sheets cannot be regarded as having remote connection with manufacture. This itself establishes beyond doubt that the profile sheets ought to be classified as 'input' as per the main part of the definition specified in Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. If the said profile sheets are not used then probably the appellant would not be in a position to run the factory. Further the usage of the sheets is technological requirement for operation o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e self assessment era, the appellant should have claimed the credit in accordance with law is too general an argument. If the same is accepted, the provisions of proviso to Section 11A would become redundant and otiose. On being questioned, the ld. AR fairly agreed that there is no column in ER-1 return to give the break up of various input services, thus casting no obligation on the part of the assessee to give the details of the input service in which such credit stands availed. Such details would be available in RG 23A Part I and Part II accounts being maintained by the appellant and the Revenue is within it powers and jurisdiction to seek such information as regards the input service, if in doubt. The appellant cannot be held guilty of ....