2015 (1) TMI 804

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....avanan for R-1 JUDGMENT (Delivered By R. Sudhakar, J.) Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Tribunal in dismissing the appeal filed by it, the Revenue is before this Court challenging the said order by filing the present appeal. This Court, vide order dated 22.10.2010, framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:- "1) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is corre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., learned counsel appearing on either side fairly submitted that the issues covered in this appeal are squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in the respondent/assessee's own case in India Cements Ltd. - Vs  Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy-1 (2013 (297) ELT 508 (Mad.)), wherein this Court has answered the issue against the Revenue. 3. A Division Bench of this Court, consid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt decision reported in 2010 (255) ELT 481 (Commissioner of Central Excise v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd), this Court rejected the Revenue's contention and affirmed the view of the Tribunal that the impugned goods were capital goods entitled to credit under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules. 13. It is seen from the facts narrated in the case before us that the item in question ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the classification of specified capital goods, we have no hesitation in accepting the case of the assessee. Quite apart, even going by the circular, we agree with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the assessee that the amendment under Notification No.25/96 dated 31.8.1996 has to be read only as clarificatory and retrospective effect has to be given for availing modvat credit. In ....