2017 (12) TMI 73

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., etc. for fabrication of various machineries viz. Blenders, Storage tanks, foundation/structures of machineries within the factory premises. Alleging that these items are not eligible to credit, Show Cause Notice was issued to them for recovery of Rs. 2,54,423/-for the period April 2008 to March 2012. On adjudication, the demand was confirmed alongwith interest and equal amount of penalty was imposed on them. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. Hence, the present appeal. 3. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that all these items were used for fabrication of capital goods and foundation/structure of machinery within the factory premises, hence, eligible to credit as per the definition of 'inpu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ents. Further, he has brought to our notice and emphasized the amendment carried out in Explanation-II to Rule 2(a) which 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 H....