TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 431
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erest under Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 read with Section 11A/11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and imposing penalty of Rs. 6,45,158/- under Rule 15 (2) of the CCR, 2004 read with Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of steel structures, machineries for various plants such as cement, sugar, chemical, power, metallurgical, etc. and equipments, falling under Chapter 73,& 84 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETA). 3. For fabrication of the aforementioned final products, which are steel machineries, MS Plates were used as input materials by the appellant. Accordingly, Cenvat credit was availed by the appellant for such MS Plates as inpu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 11 A and Section 11 AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (Excise Act), and proposing imposition of penalty under Rule 15 (2) of Credit Rules read with Section 11 AC of Excise Act. The demand was proposed on the ground that the MS Steel sheets being used for fabrication of platforms, was neither covered under the definition of inputs nor as capital goods. 8. The appellant filed a reply dated 30.08.2008 and additional submissions dated 16.02.2009 at the time of personal hearing. The Asstt. Commissioner, Bhilwara vide order-in-original dated 2.1.2019, being satisfied with the reply and submissions of the appellant, dropped the demand. It was observed that while the SCN had alleged that the MS Plates were only used as platform, however, in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cenvat credit on the steel items used for fabrication of capital goods and support structures has been allowed in the following rulings:- (1) DCM Sriram Ltd. Vs. CCE, Udaipur - 2018 (12) TMI 239-CESTAT, New Delhi [para 5-6] (2) Singhal Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2016 (341) ELT 372 (Tribunal-Delhi)[Para14-15] affirmed by the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in CCE & ST, Bilaspur Vs. Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. - 2018 (359) ELT 313 (Chhattisgarh)[para 3-4]. (3) India Cements Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai - 2015 (321) ELT 209 (Madras) [Para 10-11]. (4) UOI Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. - 2007 (214) ELT 510 (Raj.) Affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2007 (214) ELT A 115 (SC) [para3]. (5) UOI Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. - 2013 (6) TMI 144....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ious parties including in the matter of Shri Nakoda Ispat, against which the Department had filed an appeal, which was dismissed vide Order dated 12.07.2018 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 15. It was also urged that this Tribunal relying upon the above Court's decisions held that the amendment to Rule 2(k) is only prospective:- (a) Shree Prithvi Iron Mills Pvt. Ltd. - 2019 (5) TMI 969 -CESTAT, New Delhi[Para 6-7]. (b) India Cements Ltd. - 2019 (1) TMI 367 - CESTAT, New Delhi [Para 7]. (c) Nav Durga Fuel Pvt. Ltd. - 2019 (1) TMI 240 - CESTAT, New Delhi [Para 7] (d) Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. - 2018 (2) TMI 1097 - CESTAT, Allahabad [Para 5 & 7]. Thus, the restriction introduced in Explanation to Rule 2(k) would not be applicable for th....