Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2020 (9) TMI 1158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered by Three Judges in the case of Vikram Cements v. Commissioner of Central Excise, dated 18.1.2006 upon reference made by Two Judges Bench, reported in (2006 (194) ELT 3 (SC)). 2. The following substantial questions of law were sought to be raised for consideration: "(i) Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself and thereby fell into an error in holding that CENVAT credit is admissible on the capital goods which were not specified in the Rule 2(a)(A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004? (being contrary to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Vikram Cement Vs. CCE, Indore reported in 2005 (187) ELT 145 SC. [Appeal (Civil) No. 1197/2005 dated 24/8/2005]? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rectness of the decision in CCE v. J.K.Udaipur Udyog Limited (supra) was well founded. Having regard to the fact that the Cenvat Rules in effect substitute the Modvat Rules, the decision in Jaypee Rewa Cement would continue to apply. The decision in Commissioner of Central Excise v. J.K.Udaipur Udyog Limited (supra) holding to the contrary is, in our opinion, not good law. The reference is answered accordingly. All the appeals and special leave petitions will now be listed for being disposed of in the light of this judgment." 4. Thus following the said judgment, the Madras High Court, in atleast four cases of the Assessee has decided that Cenvat Credit in respect of capital goods like Structural Steel items like M.S.Plates, Angles, Chann....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....LT 558 (Mad.) are reproduced as under: "7. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and the learned counsel appearing for the assessee and perused the materials placed before this Court . 8. Even though Learned Standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the judgment in the assessee's own case reported in AIT-2011-358-HC = 2012 (285) E.L.T. 341 (Mad.) (The Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. India Cements Limited) had been appealed against, as of today, there are no details; in any event, the fact, herein is that the Revenue does not controvert the facts found by the Assistant Commissioner that the impugned goods were used for fabrication of structurals to support various machines like crusher, kiln, hop....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....& Weaving Mills Ltd.), the Apex Court held that in view of the findings rendered by the Tribunal that the machineries were complete and having regard to the meaning of the expression "components/parts", with reference to the particular industry in question, the Apex Court rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. 11. Thus going by the factual finding, which are distinguishable from the facts found by the Authorities below in the case on hand, we have no hesitation in rejecting the Revenue's appeal, thereby confirming the order of the Tribunal. 12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue pointed out that, the Tribunal had merely passed a cryptic order by referring to the earlier decisions. We do not think that this would ....