TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 685
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judicating authority relying upon the decision laid in M/s Vandana Global Ltd., Vs CCE, Raichur [2010 (253) ELT 440-LB] held that the appellant is not eligible for credit and confirmed the demand, interest and penalty. The appellants are hence before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel Sh. G. Prahlad submitted that the disputed period is September 2005 to August 2010. The amount of Rs. 21,43,07,867/- pertains to the period September 2005 to September 2009 and is also barred by limitation. An amount of Rs. 44,55,178/- pertains to MS items used after 07.07.2009 and that MS items used by the appellant after 07.07.2009 are mainly for the fabrication of pipes and therefore would be covered within the definition of capit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, inserted vide Notification No.16/2009-CE(NT), dated 07-07-2009 is clarificatory in nature and has retrospective effect. The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner Vs A.P.P.Mills Ltd, 2013(291) ELT 585(Tri-Bang) observed that the judgment laid in Vandana Global Ltd case (supra) is no longer good law as the view of the Tribunal's Larger bench was taken much before the Hon'ble Apex court decided the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd 2010(255) ELT 481(SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court in this case held that credit is admissible on MS items used for erection of capital goods when without such structural, the machinery could not be erected or put to use. The said case was referred by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the documents contains the address as well as registration number of the appellant and there is no dispute with regard to duty paid, it is not sufficient ground to deny the credit. Further L & T has also issued a certificate to appellant stating that L & T has not availed credit on these items. Another contention raised by the appellant is that part of the demand is barred by limitation. In M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., Vs CCE, Raipur [2016 (332) ELT 356 (Tri-Del)] the Tribunal had analysed the demand raised on identical issue by invoking extended period and held the issue in favor of the assessee. 10. The Supreme Court in the case of Continental Foundation Jt. v. Commr. of C.Ex., Chandigarh-1 reported in 2007 (216) E.L.T. 177 (S.C.) held t....