2023 (4) TMI 165

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Advocate For the Respondent : Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, Authorized Representative ORDER PER R. MURALIDHAR The Appellant is manufacturer of Sponge Iron and TMT Bars. They have taken Cenvat Credit of Rs.1,20,000/- for the foundation bolts received by them during the period July 2007 under the Capital Goods heading. They have taken 50% of the Credit in 2007-08 and the balance 50% has been ta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re is no suppression on their part. After due process, both the Lower Authorities confirmed the demand. Hence, the Appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. Advocate submits that they have taken the credit correctly under the heading of Capital goods since the supplier had classified the same under CET8455. The classification adopted by the vendor at their end cannot be questioned by the Dep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Department reiterates the findings of the Lower Authorities and submits that as the foundation bolts are to be classified under Chapter 73, the same cannot be treated as Capital goods as this CET is not mentioned as Capital Goods under Rule 2 (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Therefore, the Cenvat Credit has been rightly denied to the Appellants....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve relied on the case law of Reliance Industry vs. CCE 2007 (210) ELT 422 (Tri.-Mum). 7. In view of the foregoing, the OIA is set aside on merits. 8. Coming to the limitation issue raised by the Ld. Advocate, it is an admitted fact that the Cenvat Credit taken on the foundation bolts has been reflected by them in their ER-1 Returns in 2007 and 2008. They have also enclosed copies of RG-23C r....