2017 (12) TMI 1179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....emand of CENVAT Credit of Rs. 17,81,211/- with interest and equal amount of penalty by disallowing the CENVAT Credit on the said items. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed appeal before the appellate authority, who vide OIA No. US/211/RGD/2013 dated 29.7.2013 rejected the appeal relying on Larger Bench judgment of Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur reported in 2010 (253) ELT 440 (LB). Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Tribunal wherein the CESTAT vide Order No. A/1795/15/SMB dated 17.6.2015 remanded back the appeal for fresh decision on merit and to pass speaking order after following the principles of natural justice, holding the issue as to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el items, credit is admissible. Secondly, the entire case of Revenue is based on the Larger Bench judgment in the case of Vandana Global (supra), whereas the said judgment was overruled by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat. Moreover the Vandana Global judgment is not applicable for the period prior to the amendment in the definition of input service, which was made by Notification No.16/2009   dated 7.7.2009. For the period prior to such amendment, the steel items were not excluded. Therefore, the same is admissible for CENVAT Credit. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. I find that the issue involved is whether on steel items namely,  round channel, parallel flat, Mill plates, Angles, MS ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d as capital goods. 5. From the above findings, it is clear that input used for manufacture/fabrication of various capital goods and after considering this submission on the basis of documents submitted by the respondent, learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondent. 6. In these circumstances, Revenues appeal which is again based on the same principle of Larger Bench judgment in Vandana Global (supra) and the Boards Circular No.267/11/2010-CX dated 8.7.2010 will be of no help to the Revenue. 7. The respondent in their Cross-Objection raised the issue of limitation. In this regard, I find that in some of the judgment which are cited below, even though Vandana Global (supra) judgment was invoked but the demand ....