TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal allowed, disputed Cenvat Credit of 2,09,573/- granted, penalty set aside, and consequential benefits awarded.</h1> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, permitting the disputed Cenvat Credit of &8377;2,09,573/- to the appellant. The penalty was set aside, and ... CENVAT credit - capital goods - various items of iron and steel - Held that:- The Cenvat Credit disallowed vide the impugned order- in- appeal is following the ruling of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Vandana Global Ltd. V/s CCE [2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)]. The said decisions stands reversed by Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in M/S VANDANA GLOBAL LIMITED AND OTHERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE [2018 (5) TMI 305 - CHHATTISGARH, HIGH COURT] wherein it has been held that amendment to explanation 2 of Rule 2 (k) of CCR 2004 vide a Notification No. 16/2009-CE is not clarificatory but only prospective in operation. In the appellant’s own case in the case of India Cement Ltd. Hon’ble Madras High Court in its judgement [THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX VERSUS M/S. INDIA CEMENTS LTD.] have held that a manufacturer- assessee is entitled to Cenvat Credit a supporting structures and structural items required for fabrication and or supporting of plant and machinery as without the said activity of fabrication no excisable goods can be manufactured. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Dispute over Cenvat Credit on various iron and steel items used for fabrication of machinery.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the Cenvat Credit on various iron and steel items used for fabrication of machinery. The appellant, a manufacturer of cement and clinker, was issued a show cause notice for taking Cenvat Credit on items not falling under the definition of capital goods. The notice invoked the extended period of limitation due to alleged suppression by the appellant. The matter was adjudicated, resulting in a reduced confirmed amount of credit, with the appellant contesting the decision. The appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, permitting further credit on specific items and retaining disallowance at a reduced amount. The appellant, unsatisfied with the decision, appealed before the Tribunal.The appellant argued for the allowance of credit on the items used for fabrication of machinery falling under specific chapters. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and referred to the ruling of the Larger Bench in Vandana Global Ltd. v/s CCE 2010, which was later reversed by the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court. The Tribunal also cited decisions from the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and the Madras High Court, emphasizing the interpretation of Section 37 of the Central Excise Act and the treatment of items like angles, joists, beams, and bars used in fabrication of structures in the plant as inputs for production of excisable goods. The Tribunal noted the appellant’s entitlement to Cenvat Credit for supporting structures and structural items required for fabrication of plant and machinery, as upheld in previous judgments.Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding the disputed Cenvat Credit of &8377;2,09,573/- as allowable to the appellant. The penalty was set aside, and the appellant was granted consequential benefits as per the order dictated and pronounced in the open court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
