TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....technological structures and also oxygen gas, welding electrodes for repair and maintenance of plant and machineries falling under Chapter 84 of the Tariff Act. Central Excise duty paid on the steel items was taken as cenvat credit by the appellant. Relying on the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri.- LB) the Department raised the objection that the appellant is nto entitled for the cenvat benefit on the above mentioned goods. The dispute was adjudicated by the Order dated 18.10.2010, wherein the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise disallowed Cenvat Credit of Rs. 16,01,142/- and imposed equal amount of penalty on the appellant. In appeal, the ld. Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rther submits that the Oxygen Gas, Arzan gas and welding electrodes were used for repair and maintenance of the capital goods installed in the factory and the credit should be available in view of the decision of Hon'ble Chattisgarh High Court in the case of Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur, reported in 2010 (256) ELT 690 (Chattisgarh). 3. Shri G.R. Singh, the ld. D.R. for Revenue, on the other hand, reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order and also relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Daya Sugar Vs. CCE, Meerut reported in 2015 (316) ELT 394 (All.) to state Central Excise duty Paid on the disputed goods would not be available for cenvat credit to the appellant. 4. I have heard th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... through the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. We do not find that amendment made in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which come into force on 07.07.2009 was clarificatory amendment as there is nothing to suggest in the Amending Act that amendment made in Explanation 2 was clarificatory in nature. Wherever the legislature wants to clarify the provision, it clearly mentions intention in the notification itself and seeks to clarify existing provision. Even, if the new provision is added then it will be new amendment and cannot be treated to be clarification of particular thing or goods and / or input and as such, the amendment could operate only prospectively. In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal is based on conjectures and sur....