CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner and held that the dredger imported by the assessee does not fall within the restricted definition of "capital goods" under CCR Rule 2(a) such that the exclusion in Rule 2(k)(v)(c) would preclude its treatment as an "input." The Tribunal construed the terms of Rules 2(a) and 2(k) contextually, applying the proviso "unless the context otherwise requires," and concluded the expression "capital goods" in Rule 2(k) must be read consistently with Rule 2(a). Consequently the exclusion clause is inapplicable and the assessee is entitled to CENVAT credit in respect of the dredger.
CESTAT allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner and held that the dredger imported by the assessee does not fall within the restricted definition of "capital goods" under CCR Rule 2(a) such that the exclusion in Rule 2(k)(v)(c) would preclude its treatment as an "input." The Tribunal construed the terms of Rules 2(a) and 2(k) contextually, applying the proviso "unless the context otherwise requires," and concluded the expression "capital goods" in Rule 2(k) must be read consistently with Rule 2(a). Consequently the exclusion clause is inapplicable and the assessee is entitled to CENVAT credit in respect of the dredger.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
