2017 (9) TMI 342

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e factory. Alleging that these items are not eligible to credit, Show Cause Notice was issued to them for recovery of Rs. 2,03,111/- for the period 13.09.2009 to 06.04.2013. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed alongwith interest and equal amount of penalty. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority and rejected their appeal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. The Ld. Advocate Shri Rahul Gajera for the appellant submits that all these items were used as structure to hold capital goods viz furnace, hence, eligible to credit as per the definition of input prescribed under Rule 2(k) of CCR, 2004. He submits that the credit for fabrication of the capital goods is admissible to the appellant in vie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9. It has further been pleaded that the Cenvat credit claimed for the period prior to this will be covered within the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra). 14. The Larger Bench decision in Vandana Global Ltd.'s case (supra) laid down that even if the iron and articles were used as supporting structures, they would not be eligible for the credit. Considering the amendment made w.e.f. 7-7-2009 as a clarification amendment and hence to be considered retrospectively. However, we find that the said decision of the Larger Bench was considered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd., 2015 (04) LCX0197 - 2015 (39) S.T.R. 726 (Guj.), wherein it was observed th....