2024 (8) TMI 1401

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the Order-In-Original and confirmed the demand of Rs.18,25,939/- and Rs.2,83,182/- under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules read with Section 11AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 along with equal penalty. 2. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, therefore, both the appeals are taken up together for discussion and disposal. For the sake of convenience the fact of the Excise Appeal No.70048 of 2018 are taken up. 3. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of V.P. Sugar and Molasses falling under Chapter No.17 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Vide letter dated 16.11.2015 the Department aske....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....finding is based on the general allegation. Learned Commissioner has relied upon the judgement of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global V/s CCE, 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri.-LB) wherein it was held that Cenvat Credit on inputs used in fabrication of structure/foundation and for building support structure is not admissible. 6. The learned Counsel further submits that the said decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has been set aside by the parent High Court i.e. Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in TAXC No.59 of 2011 (Vandana Global Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Central Excise & Cutoms) wherein agreeing with the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd. V/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....16 (341) ELT 372 affirmed CCE & ST, Bilaspur v. Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 2018 (359) E.L.T. 313 (Chandigarh) d. Merino Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner CE, Noida 2021 (378) ELT 335-CESTAT Allahabad e. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut-11,2017(352) E.L.T. 215 (Tri-All) f. Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. vs. Comm. of C.Ex., Raipur 2010 (256) ELT 690 (Chattisgrah) 8. Learned counsel further submits that the question of interest and penalty does not arise when the demand itself is not sustainable. She also submits that extended period cannot be invoked on the basis of audit objection. 9. Learned Departmental Representative has reiterated the impugned order. 10 After considering ....