2019 (4) TMI 1591

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....king to deny CENVAT credit on the ground that these were not inputs or capital goods. After following due process, the lower authority dropped the demand. Aggrieved, the Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the lower authority before the first appellate authority who allowed the Revenue's appeal and set aside the order of the lower authority. Hence this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prior to 07.07.2009, the term 'inputs' included inputs which were used in the factory of manufacture for fabrication or repair and maintenance of the capital goods. The entire period in question is prior to 07.07.2009. Only after 07.07.2009 the goods in question were excluded from the definition of inputs. The issue has been....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tilisation of the goods in question for repair/maintenance of capital goods. It is his assertion that since the appellant could not prove that the materials in question were used for repairs/maintenance of capital goods, they are not entitled to credit. Countering this submission, learned counsel for the appellant draws the attention of the Bench to the sheets provided by the Finance department which provide invoice wise details of where the material in question was used. This includes invoice No., date, name of supplier, description of the goods and the capitalised asset name. Therefore they are entitled to CENVAT credit of the materials in question. They cannot be denied credit merely because the Manager (Works) of their client could not ....