2017 (10) TMI 836

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s are not eligible to credit, Show Cause Notice was issued to them for recovery of Rs. 9,11,812/- for the period April 2007 to August 2009. 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 P.K. Shetty for the appellant submits that all these items were used for fabrication of capital goods installed in the factory, 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 appellantin view of the judgement of the Prin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ich defines the term Input w.e.f. 7-7-2009. 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....