TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 155
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o appeal No.E/15/12. 2. The issue involved in both the cases are the same and hence they are taken up for disposal on a consolidated order. During the period July, 2005 and December , 2006 to June, 2008, the appellant made use of steel materials such as M.S. Angles, Channels etc. and used the same in the manufacture of Dry Heater/Calcine Storage Tanks/ silos etc. The CENVAT Credit was availed on such goods claiming that these were used in the manufacture of Supporting Structures but the Department sought to deny CENVAT Credit on such goods by taking the view that the same are not valued in terms of Rule 2 (a) read with Rule 2 (k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In respect of the appeal No. E/2015, further the cement used in making the supp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court has considered the claim of Welding Electrodes under the definition of Capital Goods under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and have come to the conclusion that the credit will not be allowable under this Rule. However, we find that the credit of duty paid on Welding Electrodes has been held allowable by several decisions of this Tribunal and hence the issue is no more res integra. We also find that several High Courts have also allowed such credit considering the same as allowable within the definition of Input under the Cenvat Credit Rules. One such reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, 2010 (256)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 prospectively. 15. We find that the controversy can be laid to rest by making a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., 2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered an identica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Cenvat credit. The same view was also held by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Lafarge India Ltd. Reported in 2016 TIOL 2875 (CESTAT-Delhi). By following the decisions(supra) we are of the view that CENVAT Credit is allowable on such Iron and steel structures . The cement used alongwith the structural items for construction of capital goods as well as supporting structures will also be considered as inputs for which credit will be available as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner Vs. India Cements Ltd. [2012 (285) ELT 341 (Madras)]. Consequently, reversal of such CENVAT Credit is not justified and is set aside. 5. In respect of the Appeal No. E 15/12 as observed above, the CENVAT Credit on Iron & Stee....