2012 (2) TMI 11

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....duty paid on the capital goods in the subsequent financial year, without installing the same and putting it into use as held by Ispat Industries (supra) case or the said assessee cannot avail the credit, as held by Parasrampuria Synthetics (supra) case." 3. In the present case, the dispute is for the period 2003-2004. The relevant provisions of Rule 4(2 )( a) & (b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 are reproduced below:-     " 4. Conditions for allowing CENVAT Credit. -     (1) The CENVAT credit in respect of inputs may be taken immediately on receipt of the inputs in the factory of the manufacturer.     Provided that in respect of final products falling under Chapter 61 or 62 of the F....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tained under rule 4(2)(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules which provide that the balance of cenvat credit may be taken in any financial year subsequent to the financial year in which the capital goods were received in the factory of the manufacturer, if the capital goods, other than components, spares and accessories, refractories and refractory materials and goods falling under heading no. 68.02 and sub-heading no. 6801.10 of the Tariff, are in the possession and use of the manufacture of final products in such subsequent years. 5. The issue referred to the Larger Bench is interpretation of the expression used in the Rule i.e 'possession' and 'use of the manufacturer of final products', which is the condition for availing credit of balance 5....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... capital goods other than components, spares and accessories, refractories and refractory materials and goods falling under heading no. 68.02 and sub-heading no. 6801.10 of the First Schedule to the Tariff Act are in the possession and use of the manufacturer of final products in such subsequent years."     3. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the assessee received capital goods for the Hot Strip Mill-Phase II project during the year 2001-02 and in terms of the provisions of Rule 4(2) availed of fifty percent of the duty paid on the capital goods as credit. The balance of fifty percent was availed of in the subsequent financial year 2002-03. According to the Revenue, the assessee was not entitled to avail of t....