2015 (8) TMI 246

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Chennai. 2. At the time of admission, this Court framed the following substantial question of law: "Whether the order of the learned Tribunal inasmuch as it gives effect to the notification No.16/09 prior to 7.7.2009 overlooking the fact that the same is made expressly effective only from the aforesaid date?" 3. The appellant/assessee is a manufacturer of sugar, molasses, rectified spirit etc. The assessee availed Cenvat Credit on capital goods used in the erection of various capital goods, viz., M.S.Plates, M.S.Angles, M.S.Channels and H.R. Plates, which were purchased and utilized in the construction/erection of plant. 4. Show cause notices were issued by the Department stating that these are ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat this Court has earlier considered the issue in C.M.A.No.1301 of 2005 dated 31.12.2012, wherein, while dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue the Division Bench of this Court held as follows: "8. Even though learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the judgment in the assessee's own case reported in AIT-2011-358-HC (The Commissioner of Central Excise V. M/s. India Cements Limited) had been appealed against, as of today, there are no details; in any event, the fact herein is that the Revenue does not controvert the facts found by the Assistant Commissioner that the impugned goods were used for fabrication of structurals to support various machines like crusher, kiln, hoppers, pre-heaters conveyor system e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gs rendered by the Tribunal that the machineries were complete and having regard to the meaning of the expression "components/parts", with reference to the particular industry in question, the Apex Court rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. 11. Thus going by the factual finding, which are distinguishable from the facts found by the Authorities below in the case on hand, we have no hesitation in rejecting the Revenue's appeal, thereby confirming the order of the Tribunal. 12. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue pointed out that the Tribunal had merely passed a cryptic order by referring to the earlier decisions. We do not think that this would in any manner prejudice the case of the Revenue, given the fact that on ....