TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Modvat credit of Rs. 4,99,229/- on the ground that credit has been taken without any valid documents; and (b) Ordered the recovery of the above credit from the appellant. The matter travelled upto the Tribunal, where it was disposed of vide Final Order No. A/551/2001-NB (DB), dated 29-6-2001 by which while the modvat credit demand of Rs. 4,99,229/- was upheld, the modvat credit of demand of Rs. 48,14,702/- was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for de novo adjudication in the light of Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE, Indore v. Surya Roshini Ltd. reported in 2001 (42) RLT 817 = 2001 (128) E.L.T. 293 (Tri. - LB.). 1.2 In de-novo adjudication proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 24-1-2002, confirmed modvat credit demand of Rs. 4,99,227/- (credit taken without document), though the same being upheld by the Tribunal, there was no necessity to re-adjudicate the same; (b) disallowed Modvat credit of Rs. 20,71,103/- on MS Angles, Channels, Sections, Sheets, Bars etc. used for erection of supporting structures for machinery and also disallowed credit of Rs. 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment filed a review appeal against the Deputy Commissioner's order and CCE (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 27-8-2010 - (a) restored the modvat credit demand of Rs. 20,71,103/- in respect of structural steel items on the ground that the judgments of the Tribunal (Order No. 2062/2005-SM, dated 5-12-2005, 408/2008-SM, dated 15-1-2008 and 1005/2007-SM, dated 1-6-2007) mentioned in the Tribunal's order are not applicable to the definition of 'capital goods' for the period in question i.e. Nov. 1994 - August 1995 period; and (b) restored the demands of Rs. 1,02,237/- and Rs. 42,065/- on the ground that the same have been wrongly set aside. 1.5 Against the above order of CCE (Appeals), this appeal and stay application has been filed. This is the third round of proceedings before the Tribunal. 2. Heard both the sides. Though this matter is listed only for hearing of stay application, after hearing the same for some time we were of the view that since a short issue is involved and the matter is very old, there is no point in keeping the appeal pending. Accordingly, with the consent of both the sides, the appeal was h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of certain item of Chapter 84 and Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff is concerned, from the perusal of the order in appeal dated 27-3-2010 of CCE (Appeals) and the earlier order in appeal dated 14-6-2004 of CCE (Appeals) in 2nd round of litigation, it is clear that there is no dispute about eligibility of these items for capital goods modvat credit. The dispute in respect of these items is on factual point as to whether the credit of these amounts had already been allowed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 17-4-1997. According to appellant, invoices in respect of these items are available but still the modvat credit has not been allowed and is being demanded. We find that in para 4(d) and 4(e) of CCE (Appeals)'s order dated 14-6-2004 in 2nd round of litigation, this point had been discussed and while the demand of Rs. 102237/- had been reduced for Rs. 41,775/-, the demand of Rs. 42,065/- had been reduced to Rs. 38815/-. In 3rd round of litigation, while the Deputy Commissioner vide de novo order in original dated. 7-12-2007 set aside both the demands without discussing the question of availability of duty paying documents, the CCE (Appeals) in the impugn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6-2007) referred to by the Tribunal in its Order No. 513/08-Ex., dated 18-7-2008 pertains to the period when the definition of "capital goods" covered the goods of certain specific tariff headings, their parts & components and some other specific items and machinery and did not include the general expression - "machines, machinery, plant, equipment ......" Subsequently these judgments were overruled by Larger Bench judgment of the Tribunal in case of Vandana Global Ltd. v. CCE, Raipur reported in 2010 -TIOL-624-CESTAT Del. LB = 2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri. - LB) wherein it was held that MS Angles, channels, bars, plates etc. used of erecting supporting structures are not eligible for cenvat credit either as inputs or as capital goods as these items are neither covered by the definition of "capital goods" nor the same can be treated as "input" used for the manufacture of capital goods, as the supporting structure are capital assets fixed to the earth, not capital goods. But during period prior to 16-3-1995, to which this case pertains, the position was different and the definition of capital goods included "plant" also. 9. A Larger Bench of the Tribunal in case of Jawahar Mil....