TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 710
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er authorities have confirmed the demand. 2. The Learned Consultant submits that the Appellant has submitted a detailed Certificate from the Chartered Engineer towards usage of each and every item in their factory premises. The Appellant submits that these items have been used in the fabrication of capital goods which ultimately are used for manufacture of the dutiable goods. Therefore, on merits, the lower authorities are in error in confirming the demand. 3. He further submits that the Department has issued the Show Cause Notice primarily based on the decision of the Vandana Global case which now stands overturned by Chhattisgarh High Court. Further there are several decisions of the Tribunals and High Courts holding that the Cenvat Cre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailed evidence produced, the lower authorities have not given proper consideration and confirmed the demand. We find that the issue is no more res integra. 8. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Thiru Arooram Sugars Vs. CESTAT, Chennai-2017 (355) ELT 373 (Mad.) has held as under:- 44. In the facts of this case, we have to conclude that MS structurals, which support the plant and machinery, which are, in turn, used in the manufacture of sugar and molasses are an integral part of such plant and machinery. The assessee has clearly demonstrated that structurals as well as foundations, which are erected by using steel and cement are integral part of the capital goods (i.e., plant and machinery), as they hold in position the plant and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les conferred by clause (xvi) of sub-section (2) shall include the power to give retrospective effect to rebate of duties on inputs used in the export goods from a date not earlier than the changes in the rates of duty on such inputs. Though the power to make rules include the power to give retrospective effect, while doing so the provision under consideration is neither made retrospective nor could it be treated as one. [Emphasis supplied] 10. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. Madras Aluminum Co. Ltd., has also gone into the aspect of time limitation and has held as udner:- 8. When such is the scenario, whether it amounts to a suppression of fact at the first instance is required ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....collusion are concerned, it is evident that the requisite intent, i.e., intent to evade duty is built into these very words. So far as misstatement or suppression of facts are concerned, they are clearly qualified by the word "wilful" preceding the words "misstatement or suppression of facts" which means with intent to evade duty. The next set of words "contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or Rules" are again qualified by the immediately following words "with intent to evade payment of duty". It is, therefore, not correct to say that there can be a suppression of misstatement of fact, which is not wilful and yet constitutes a permissible ground for the purpose of the proviso to Section 11A. Mis-statement or suppression of fact....