2017 (9) TMI 1113

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ry 2009 to December, 2009. It  is the contention of the ld. Advocate for the appellant that duty paid on angles, channels, beams etc. used in the structure for holding the capital goods and also fabrication of the capital goods are admissible to CENVAT credit under Rle 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. In support, he has referred to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Singhal  Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.Cus. & C. Ex., Raipur - 2016 (341) ELT 372 (Tri-Del.) 3.  Ld. A.R. for the Respondent-Revenue has submitted that the appellant had availed inadmissible credit on angles, channels, beams etc. which were used in the fabrication of  structure, factory, road etc. 4.  I find  that the appellant had avail....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....red 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 that the amendment made on 7-7-2009 cannot be held to be clarificatory and as such would be applicable only p....