2015 (11) TMI 553

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y paid on inputs and capital goods used in or in relation to manufacture of the said final product. The dispute involved in the present case is with regard to denial of cenvat credit on locomotive taken by the appellant in the month of November, 2010. The reason for denial of the Cenvat benefit is that the said disputed item does not qualify either as inputs or capital goods for the purpose of taking cenvat credit. 3. The Ld. Advocate, Sh. B. L. Narsimhan, appearing for the appellant submits that the locomotive is used to transportation of raw materials and finished goods within the factory of production. According to him, without continuous and timely supply of raw material to the plant, the manufacture of cement would not be commercially....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecisions cited by the Ld. Advocate for the appellant, the Ld. Jt. CDR submits that the said decision in the case of Jayaswal Neco Ltd.(supra) will have no application to the facts of the present case because the period involved in the said decided case is prior to year 2000, when the Cenvat Credit Rules were not in vogue and the definition of capital goods contained in the erstwhile Central Excise Rules was very broad and extensive to take within its ambit almost all the goods used by the manufacturer. To justify his above stand, the Ld. Jt. CDR cited the decision in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs Commissioner of Cus. & C. Ex Jaipur, reported in 2009 (235) ELT 289 (Tri. Del). 5. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the ....