2009 (6) TMI 815

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the case are as under: 2. The respondent are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under heading 84 of the First Schedule to the CETA, 1985. A show-cause notice was served on the respondent alleging that they have wrongly availed input credit on Tungsten Carbide Tools as input instead of capital goods. 3. The adjudicating authority disallowed the credit of 40324/- on Tungsten Carbide Tools by holding that they are capital goods. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 3-6-2008 held that Tungsten Carbide Tools are 'capital goods' and they are eligible to take only 50% of the credit of the capital g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eld that there was no conflict in Larger Bench decisions in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. (supra) and Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra) as Union Carbide India decision was in respect of interpretation of the word 'input' and the decision in the case of Jawahar Mills case was in respect of interpretation of the word 'capital goods'. The finding of the Larger Bench is that the goods which are claimed as 'input' cannot get credit as 'capital goods' in the context that if a particular goods qualify as an 'input' then it cannot qualify as 'capital goods' at the same time. It does not mean that if the assessee wrongly considered the goods as 'input' and avails the credit as 'input' and subsequently the assessee cannot claim the credit as 'capital....