Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 372 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of cenvat credit - various steel items used for fabrication / manufacture of various capital goods installed in the factory - April, 2008 to September, 2008 - denial on the ground that the same are not confirming to the definition of either capital goods or input for availment of the cenvat benefit - Held that: - Explanation 2 appended to the definition of inputs in Rule 2 (k) ibid provided that the goods used in the manufacture of capital goods which are further used in the factory of the manufacture, should fall within the ambit of input for the purpose of availment of cenvat credit. However, the said explanation was amended vide N/N. 16/09-C.E.(N.T.) dated 07.07.2009, which are to the effect that cement, angles, channels, CTD Bars, TMT and other items used for construction of factory shed, building or laying foundation or making of structure for support of capital goods were excluded from the purview of the definition of input. The issue as to whether the amendment of the definition w.e.f. 07.07.2009 will apply prospectively or will have retrospective application, was the subject matter of dispute before various judicial forums. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Port and Special Economic Zone Ltd. [2015 (5) TMI 663 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] have held that the explanation inserted in Rule 2 (k) is not clarificatory in nature and the same is effective from the date, when the same was brought in to the statute book. The disputed goods were procured prior to the date of amendment of Rule 2 (k) ibid, cenvat benefit on the disputed goods cannot be denied to the appellant - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|