TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 797
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....services. Pursuant to an audit, a Show Cause Notice dated 10.06.2013 was issued alleging that the Appellant had availed credit during the period from September 2010 to July 2012 to the tune of Rs.1,25,71,873/- on various capital goods which appear to be not eligible for credit under the definition of capital goods. The Appellant assailed the allegations contained in the Show Cause Notice vide their reply dated 06.09.2013 and contended that they are entitled to take credit on the disputed goods. The Appellant also filed a Written Submission at the time of personal hearing before the Adjudicating authority along with an Annexure duly certified by a Chartered Engineer along with details of utilization area, with description and the main equipm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not call for invoice-wise details of Cenvat credit availed. Since the Cenvat Credit has been properly disclosed in the ER-1 return, the question of suppression does not arise. It is the case of the Appellant that they were under the bona fide belief that they are eligible for the Cenvat credit on the goods in question and therefore in such a situation the question of suppression does not arise. 3. The Ld.Authorized Representative, appearing on behalf of the Department, submitted that the Appellant utilized Cenvat credit on steel items for laying foundation/making structures for support of capital goods and therefore the Appellant utilized Cenvat credit irregularly. He further submits that the Appellant failed to adduce any evidence that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appear to be covered under the category of capital goods in terms of Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as the aforesaid items were either used as parts in furnace and in pollution control equipments etc..The furnace and other equipments are constructed part by part at site and attached by foundation to earth and the change of identity from the parts used for the furnace and other equipments takes place in the course of the construction and erection of the same and do not fulfill the conditions of mobility and marketability to be accorded the status of 'goods'. For this purpose a Show Cause Notice dated 10.06.2013 was issued to the Appellant raising a demand of Rs.1,25,71,873/-. We find that the Appellant is a manufacturer of Sili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered Engineer's Certificate was produced before the Adjudicating authority, it was incumbent on the authorities to either contradict the Chartered Engineer's Certificate or accept the same. In the absence of any contradictory Certificates on record holding otherwise that the inputs were used for fabrication of machinery, the non-consideration of the Certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer by the Adjudicating authority seems to be not in consonance with law. Further, receipt of goods and thereafter use for fabrication as per Chartered Engineer's Certificate is not contested, but contested only on a point that the inputs do not fall under the category of capital goods and hence not eligible for Cenvat credit, will not support the case of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
................. ........................... 11. In Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra), heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, the question which came up for consideration was whether the claim of modvat credit by some manufacturers in respect of certain items by treating them as capital goods in terms of Rule 57Q was in order. Some of the items under consideration were power cables, capacitors, control panels, cable distribution boards, air compressors, etc. The Court examined the question in the light of the definition of capital goods given in Explanation to Rule 57Q, which read as follows : "capital goods" means-- (a) machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances used for producing or processin....