TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether Cenvat credit was admissible on MS sheets, angles, channels and MS plates used as supporting structurals after the insertion of Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2005; (ii) whether Cenvat credit was admissible on welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance in the factory.
Issue (i): whether Cenvat credit was admissible on MS sheets, angles, channels and MS plates used as supporting structurals after the insertion of Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2005.
Analysis: The disputed credit on structural items was held to be covered by decisions of higher courts which had taken a view favourable to the assessee and had not accepted the contrary view of the larger Bench relied upon in the impugned order. In the absence of assistance from the appellant and without examining the exact use of each item, the matter required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority in the light of the binding precedent.
Conclusion: The issue was treated as being in favour of the assessee, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision.
Issue (ii): whether Cenvat credit was admissible on welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance in the factory.
Analysis: On welding electrodes, the prevailing line of High Court decisions had consistently been followed by the Tribunal in favour of credit eligibility. As the record did not permit a complete factual examination of the use of each item, a fresh adjudication was considered necessary along with the other disputed credits.
Conclusion: The issue was treated as being in favour of the assessee, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.
Final Conclusion: The denial of credit on both categories of inputs was set aside and the dispute was sent back for fresh adjudication in accordance with the prevailing judicial precedents.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
