9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Revenue is directed against grant of CENVAT credit of Rs.2,71,101/- to the respondent (assessee) in respect of MS angles, plates, sheets, rods, etc., treated as 'inputs'. These items were used for strengthening/maintenance of old structures viz., chain conveyor trough, cane feeding troughs, bagasse carriers and also for fabrication of capital goods like storage tanks during the period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey reiterated their claim of CENVAT credit on the above items as 'capital goods' and, alternatively, also submitted that the said items could also be treated as 'inputs' as defined under Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. This alternative plea was accepted by the appellate authority. Hence the present appeal of the Revenue. 2. Learned DR reiterates the grounds of this appeal and also cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner (Appeals) to the assessee is beyond the scope of the dispute in the case. 4. Learned consultant for the respondent has claimed support from a line of decisions including the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Banco Products (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner - 2009 (235) ELT 636 (Tri.-LB), Commissioner Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills - 2010 (255) ELT 481 (SC), etc. It is submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y did not have occasion to examine the question whether the above items could alternatively be regarded as 'inputs' in terms of Rule 2(k) ibid. This question was not raised before it. Thirdly, the reliance placed by the assessee on earlier favourable orders of adjudication was not considered by the original authority. Lastly, the competent authority to ascertain the basic facts of the case is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
