TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 1705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me as irregular Cenvat Credit, Show Cause Notice was issued for the period 2007 to 2008-09. After due process, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal. 2. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the entire demand is for the period April 2007 to September 2008. Hence, the demand pertains to the period prior to the amendment of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He submits that the Adjudicating Authority has relied on the decision of Vandana Global to confirm the demand. He submits that this decision was subsequently set aside by the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. Commr. of C.Ex & Cus. Raipur-2018 (16) G.S.T.L. 462 (Chattisg....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Revenue has been overturned by the Chhattisgarh High Court, it shows that there cannot be any allegation of suppression on the part of the appellant. In view of these submissions, he prays that the appeal may be allowed even on account of limitation. 7. The Learned AR reiterates the findings of the lower authority. 8. Heard both sides and perused the appeal papers and other documentary evidence placed before us. 9. On going through the factual details, there is no dispute that angles, channels, joist, beam, etc. have been used by the appellant for either manufacturing/fabricating their capital goods or for providing structural support to capital goods. Therefore, these goods have been used in or in relation to manufacturing activ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be treated as one. 8. We are in complete agreement with the ratio of Mundra Ports (supra) and M/s. Thiruarooran Sugars (supra) on all fours. 9. Resultantly, we answer the questions formulated in these appeals in favour of the ssesses and against the Revenue. [Emphasis supplied] 10. The Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Commr. of C.Ex., Lucknow Vs. Manikpur Chini Mills-2019 (367) E.L.T. 889 (All.) has held as under:- 32. On going through the record, we find that the Revenue has relied upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global (supra), wherein it was held that the Explanation added to the definition of capital goods w.e.f. 7-7- 2009 has to be held as expla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apital goods is applied, all such items fell within the scope and ambit of both Rule 2(a)(A) and 2(k) and, therefore, Cenvat credit was to be allowed on such goods. 35. In view of above settled position of law, since items used by the respondent-assessee were used as structure to hold the capital goods, hence, it is wrong to say that respondents are not eligible to Cenvat credit. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal and the reasoning given by the Tribunal cannot be said to be not cogent or correct appreciation of evidence on record. [Emphasis supplied] 11. Since the present issue is squarely covered by the above decisions, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal ....