2019 (11) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urpose of advertising they fabricate and erect the hoarding boards on which the advertisement is displayed. For fabrication and erection of such hoarding boards, the appellant used MS Angles, Channels, GP Coils, Beams etc. on which they have availed Cenvat credit treating the same as inputs. The case of the department is that the appellant are not entitled for the Cenvat credit in respect of said steel goods. The Adjudicating Authority while denying the Cenvat credit referred to Rule 3(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules and definition in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 i.e. for capital goods and also Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and held that the steel items used are neither the capital goods nor inputs for providing output service.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....280/- for the period April 2005 to March 2007 was also dropped on the ground of time-barred. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee has filed this appeal and Revenue has also filed appeal to the extent of Cenvat credit of Rs. 57,94,280/- dropped on the ground to time-bar. 3. Shri Amal Dave, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue of Cenvat credit on the goods such as Angles, Channels, Beams etc. has now been settled. He submits that, earlier the cases were made out on the basis of Larger Bench decision in the case of Vandana Global Limited passed by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. This judgment has been reversed by the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court reported at Vandana Global Limited vs. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-Ahmd.) (d) Musaddilal Projects Limited vs. CCE & Cus, Hyderabad-l - 2017 (4) GSTL 401 (Tri. - Hyd.) (e) Vodafone Mobile Services Limited vs. CST, Delhi 201 8-TIOL-2409-HC-DEL-ST (f) Vandana Global Limited vs. CCE & Cus. Raipur - 2018 (16) GSTL 462 (Chhattisgarh) (g) Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Limited vs. CCE & Cus. - 2015 (39) STR 726 (Guj.) (h) Thiru Arooran Sugars vs. CESTAT, Chennai - 2017 (355) ELT 373 (Mad.) 4. Shri L. Patra, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- (a) 2015 (40) STR 422 (Bom) - Vodafone India Limited vs. CCE, Mumbai-II (b) 2016 (42) STR 249 (Tri-LB) - Tower Vision In....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of law and facts which can be decided only on the basis of use of goods. Therefore, since there is so much development taken place after passing the adjudication order, we are of the view that Adjudicating Authority must reconsider the entire case in view of the facts of this case and considering various judgments passed by various High Courts. Therefore, we are of the considered view that in assessee's appeal, matter should go back to the Adjudicating Authority. 7. As regards the Revenue's appeal seeking setting aside the dropping of demand of Rs. 57,94,280/- on the ground of time-barred, we find that Adjudicating Authority dropped the said demand holding that in respect of such demand, there is no suppression of facts. The Adjudicatin....