Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2015 (3) TMI 661

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Chennai was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in denying cenvat credit on MS Rod Sheets, M.S.Chennel, M.S.Plates, Flats etc. used in the fabrication of fly ash hooper, fly ash bin, fly ash handling system & kiln brick laying work to bold refractories? and 2. Whether the decision of the Larger Bench in M/s.Vandana Global Ltd. and others vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2010 (253) ELT 440 (LB) can be said to have laid the correct principle of law and whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal?" 2.  The appellant/assessee is a manufacturer of ceme....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Vandana Global Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur vide Misc. Order No.296/2010-EX(LB) in Appeal No.E/1036/2008, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, thereby sustained the demand made by the Adjudicating Authority.  However, the Tribunal deleted the penalty in view of the contrary orders on the same issue.  5.  Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the assessee is before this Court. 6.  Learned counsel appearing for the assessee placed before this Court the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur V. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., reported in 2010 (255) ELT 481) to contend that the impugned goods are used in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp; "7.  In the present case, it is seen that the items in question were used in the erection of various machineries such as, - new additional Electrostatic Precipitator for raw mill project, additional fly ash handling system, MMD crusher etc. for the Dry Process Cement Manufacturing Plant.  It is evident that MS Angles, MS Beams, MS Channels etc. were used in the erection of machineries it become component of the same, which are integral part of Dry Process Cement Manufacturing Plant.  It is noted that Fly Ash handlish system is a pollution control equipment and particularly mentioned in 2(a)(A)(ii) of Rules, 2004.  The allegation in the above show-cause notice that the Chapter Heading of these items were not covered ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appears to be beyond the scope of the show-cause notice.  So, the case of M/s.Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd. (supra) as relid upon by the learned AR is not applicable in the present case." 11.  Asfar as the reliance placed on the decision  reported in 2011-TIOL-73-SC-CX (Saraswati Sugar Mills V. Comissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - III) in Civil Appeal No.5295 of 2003 dated 02.08.2011 by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue is concerned, we find that this Court had earlier considered the case of the assessee in two similar cases of the previous assessment years in C.M.A.No.1301 of 2005 dated 31.12.2012, where a reference was made to an order passed earlier in respect of the very same assessee.&nbs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not find any good ground to take a different view  herein too.  10. As far as the reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision reported in 2011(270) E.L.T.465 (SC) (Saraswati Sugar Mills V. Commissioner of C.Ex., Delhi-III) is concerned,  we do not think that the said decision would be of any assistance to the Revenue, considering the factual finding by the Tribunal therein in the decided case that the machineries purchased by the assessee were machineries themselves.  Thus, after referring to the decision reported in 2010 (255) E.L.T.481 (Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur V. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.), the Apex Court held that in view of the findings rendered by the Tribunal that the machineries we....