TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1696
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a 769004 : Respondent authorities relied on the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs CCE reported in 2010(253) E.L.T. 440(LB) while denying the CENVAT Credit and confirming the demand. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant makes the following submissions: i. During the period 2005-06 and 2006-07 for setting up of Sponge Iron unit, the Appellant purchased various Iron and Steel materials (CH.72) and Welding Rods falling under Ch.38 on payment of excise duty of Rs.45,50,485/- and Rs.1,59,879/- respectively aggregating to Rs.47,10,364/-. The details of the manufacture capital goods are as per the the Annexure - "A" submitted along with Appeal. ii. The Appellant furnished Utilization Statement (Page 59 and also Para 4.14 at Page 128 of OIO) duly certified by qualified Chartered Engineer in support of their of claim. iii. The 'Capital Goods' manufactured by them are separately fabricated and superficially attached to technological structures, foundations inside their factory by nuts and bolts. iv. On the direction of Ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... condonation of delay which are arbitrarily not provided. 2.4. Vide the same Order, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) allowed the Appeal filed by the department and set aside the adjudication order dated 29-03- 2016. 2.5. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) in the instant case instead of considering the date of 'communication' for the purpose of computing the statutory period of limitation of 60 days for filing the appeal and further period of 30 days as condonable period in terms of Sec 35(1) of the Act, considered date of 'issue' of impugned Order dated 29-03-2016 for the same on ground that the Appellant has failed to prove that the date of receipt of adjudication order is 28-04-2016. The date of issue of the adjudication Order was 29-03-2016, date of service was 28-04-2016 and the date of filing appeal was 27-06-2016. In the instant case, he did not verify the documents available with department to ascertain date of communication of the Order-in Original on dated 28-04-2016. 3. The Appellant most humbly submits that: - i. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) failed to appreciate that in the instant case there is nothing on record to suggest that the said adjudication order was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd Vs CCE reported in (2015) 39 STR 726 (Guj.), has held that Notification dated 07-07-2009 is prospective in nature and decision of Larger Bench of Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. is not a correct law. ix. The Appellant further submits that Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars and Ors Vs CCE reported in [2017-TMI-524-MAD-HC], while impliedly overruling the decision of Hon'ble Larger Bench in Vandana Global Ltd. case held that Notification dated 07-07-2009 itself in no uncertain terms states that it shall come into force from the date of its publication in official gazette, hence, the said amendment will not apply to period prior 07-07-2009. x. The Hon'ble Court while holding so relied upon amongst other its earlier judgments in the case of Thiru Aroonan Sugars Vs CESTAT reported in [2017 (355) ELT 373 (Mad.)] which due to non challenge has attained finality. The Hon'ble Court further held that even after 07-07-2009 explanation brought in by the said Notification dated 07-07-2009 CENVAT credit on Iron and Steel materials, Cement etc used for making of support structures, construction o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for one to understand what constitutes components or spares of certain equipments, but the expression "accessories" is not free from any doubt. The expression "accessories" is normally understood as a thing which could be added to some thing else in order to make the former more useful, versatile or attractive. The show cause notice dated 4-4- 2012 had enclosed thereto, an annexure listing out the equipments, for which the Cenvat credit has been initially taken by the respondent together with their usages. When we peruse the tabulated statement, in particular with regard to their usage, we have noticed that steel plates have been used by the respondent for supporting the other essential equipments such as HP/LP Heaters, Grider of cranes, cable trenching covering and also for covering the hot area of the boiler. 7. The claim of the respondent was that it has undertaken construction of the 4th unit of a captive power plant. In that process, it has utilized this material and "construed" them as "accessories". We could also notice that the MS angles have been used as a support structure either for construction of a platform or for ladders. Going by the common understanding of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot. From the facts discussed above, it is seen that the OIO was dated 29.03.2016. The appellants have claimed that the same was received by them on 28.04.2016 and the appeal was filed on 27.06.2016. If the OIO date itself is taken as the date of serving of the same to the appellant, as has been taken by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant was required to file the Appeal by 28.05.2016, i.e. within 60 days. After this if the condonable period of 30 days is considered, then the appeal should have been filed by 27.06.2016. In this case, it is seen from the acknowledgement given by the Commissioner (Appeals) office that the appellant has filed their Appeal on 27.07.2016. If the Commissioner (Appeals) takes a view that the appeal was filed belatedly, proper Defect Memo should have been issued allowing the appellant to make their submissions. This has not been done this case, thus giving a go-by to the principles of natural justice. Further, nowhere any evidence has been brought in to the effect that the OIO was served on 29.03.2016 itself. From the copy marked to the appellant it is seen that the File Number along with suffix '2189A' dated 29.03.2016 is appearing on the last page, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(39) S.T.R. 726 (Guj.) referred to the contents of the amendment, to the extent it is relevant for the purpose of this case and held as follows : "We do not find that amendment made in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which come into force on 7-7-2009 was clarificatory amendment as there is nothing to suggest in the Amending Act that amendment made in Explanation 2 was clarificatory in nature. Wherever the Legislature wants to clarify the provision, it clearly mentions intention in the notification itself and seeks to clarify existing provision. Even, if the new provision is added then it will be new amendment and cannot be treated to be clarification on particular thing or goods and/or input and as such, the amendment could operate only prospectively." 6. That view has been quoted with approval by the Madras High Court in M/s. Thiruarooran Sugars v. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CMA 3814/2014 and connections) decided on 10-7-2017 [2017 (355) E.L.T. 373 (Mad.)] to conclude that the said amendment cannot be treated as clarificatory. M/s. Thiruarooran Sugars also considered the issue as to the effect and fundamental value of the evidentiary statem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the CESTAT was justified in dismissing the Department's appeal since the credit was claimed in respect of the inputs used for fabrication items supporting structures of capital goods. (b) Question (ii) is answered in the affirmative by holding the CESTAT was right in law by allowing Cenvat credit on the goods used for fabrication of supporting structure for capital goods. (c) Question (iii) is answered in the affirmative by holding that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the fabrication goods used for supporting structures were capital goods for which Cenvat credit was allowable. 18. These appeals are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, with no order as to costs. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per Rules." 15. We find that to the factual matrix of the present appeal, the cited case laws are squarely applicable. Hence, we hold that denial of CENVAT Credit of Rs.45,50,485/- on various items like angles, channels, joists etc is not legally not sustainable and we set aside the same. 16. Coming to the denial of CENVAT Credit of Rs.1,59,879/- on account of the CENVAT taken on electrodes, we find that the is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....impugned order gets set aside and the appeal stands allowed. The appellant would be eligible for consequential relief, if any, as per law. (Order Pronounced in Open court on 19.09.2025) ============= Document 1 Annexure - "A" TABLE - "A" SI.No. Items 1. Associated technological structures 2. Greezely work of walk way 3. Sliding gate 4. Greezely and stair case , 5. Weigh Bridge Support frame with top plate Credit CENVAT Involved Rs.10,28,826/- Appeal [Party before Commissioner (Appeal)] TABLE - "B" SI.No. ITEMS 1. Kiln and Cooler (ABC) (i) DSC Chute Chute & platform (ii) Dust Chute, Nose cooling platform (iii) Circular Duct (iv) Liberage Frame (v) Stack Gap ABC with stack & stair case at ABC Equipment 2. Kiln Cooler Transfer Station (i) Kiln inlet hood, feed gun and feed chute (ii) Kiln outlet base frame and transfer chute (il) Cooler fan duct & Circular Duct at kiln (iv) Lobe Compressor base frame 3. Cooler discharge station (i) Cooler Discharge hood base frame (B) Support roller base frame with greczely (iii) Over size chute and discharge chute 4. Stock Banker Storage Bin (Iron ....