AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mon order. 2. The appellant are a Public Sector Undertaking, engaged in the manufacture and marketing of petroleum products. The dispute in this case is in respect of their refinery at Panipat where they manufacture various petroleum products falling under Chapter 27 and also goods covered by Chapter 39 of Central Excise Tariff, Act 1985. During period from July'07 to March'12, the appellant had taken Cenvat Credit in respect of various items of capital goods received by them for erection, installation and commissioning of Nephtha Cracker Plant. A team of officers from the Jurisdictional Central Excise Commissionerate, Rohtak, visited the appellant's premises to ascertain the correctness of the Cenvat Credit taken. The Officers found tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....how Cause Notice was issued by invoking the extended period under proviso to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by alleging that appellant company has committed fraud and deliberately suppressed the information from the Department with intent to evade the payment of duty by taking wrong Cenvat Credit. The Show Cause Notices were adjudicated and Cenvat Credit demand against the appellant along with interest thereon under Section 11AB and besides this, imposed penalty on the appellant company under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. It was also held that the capital goods in respect of which the Cenvat Credit, in question, has been taken by the appellant, had been brought ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ule 2(a), are used in the factory is not relevant, that whether the goods after being installed in the factory have become fixed to the earth is not relevant at all for capital goods, Cenvat Credit, that ownership of the goods at the time of receipt is not relevant, as it is not disputed that the goods were used by the appellant company in their plant, that in this regard he relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana Vs. Pepsi Foods Ltd., reported in 2010(254) ELT-284 (P&H), that in any case, since the appellant company have paid to their contractors for the eligibility of the capital goods procured by them, the same belong to the appellant, that the issue as to wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....therefore, would not be eligible for Cenvat Credit of the duty involved on various items of machinery which are installed and which together constitute a plant, that in support of his proposition that plants is non-excisable, he relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Quality Steel Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, reported in 1995(75) ELT-17 (S.C.) and also the Order No. 58/1/2002-CX dated 15.02.2002 issued by the Board under section 37B of the Central Excise Act, that in any case, the appellant at the time of receipt of the goods in their factory, were not their owners and hence they were not liable for the Cenvat Credit and that the appellant, though a Public Sector Undertaking, have wilfully suppressed the relevant f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... those goods which are specified in this Rule and which (except for office equipment or appliance) are used in the factory of the manufacture of the final products or for providing of output service. Thus any items which is covered by the list of the items mentioned in Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, except for office equipment or office appliances, and is used in any manner in the factory of the manufacturer of the final products, would be covered by the definition of the capital goods and accordingly would be eligible for Cenvat Credit. There is absolutely no requirement that the capital goods at the time of receipt must be owned by manufacturer or that the same would cease to be capital goods, if they are installed in the factory a....