TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 649
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d keeping this matter pending in Tribunal will not serve the interest of either party. Therefore, after dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit, we have heard both sides for final disposal of the matter with a view to remand the matter for detailed finding of facts by the adjudicating authority. 2. The dispute involved is Cenvat credit taken on steel items like MS Angles, MS Channels, MS Plates, MS Sheets etc., classifying them as capital goods for the period Mar. '04 to Jan,'10. The Counsel for appellant submits that the uses of these goods were under the following three categories CD Maintenance and repair of plant (ii) Fabrication of certain components and accessories of specified capital goods (iii) Supporting structures of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a broad manner and thereafter, relied upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Supra) and relied on WPIL Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut reported in 2005 (181) E.L.T. 359 (SC) to argue that amendments made in Cenvat Credit Rules were clarificatory in nature and hence retrospective and denied the entire credit. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that even as per the decision of the Vandana Global (supra) steel items, like the ones disputed by Revenue, when used in fabrication of plant and machinery Cenvat credit thereon could not have been denied (he is relying on para 38 and 50 of the order). He points out that this view is approved by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned Authorized Representative for the Revenue submits that even as per the statement of facts in the appeal filed it can be seen that most of the items were used as supporting structures or for fabrication of columns for supporting parts of plants. The headings given in the reply to SCN are the names of parts of plants; but the use specified at the end of most of the paragraphs shows that the use was for fabricating supporting structures. Credit cannot be extended on supporting structures as decided by the Hon Apex Court in Saraswati Sugar Mills Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III reported in 2011 (270) E.L.T.465 (S.C.). He submits that the adjudicating authority has examined the claim for Cenvat credit in fairly detailed manner an....