TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 2.4.2012. In these terms, I hold that appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit on the items in question. Consequently, appellant is not required to reverse the cenvat credit. In these terms, I set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee. - Excise Appeal No. 1983 of 2010-Ex (SM) - ORDER NO. FO/52259/2015-Ex(SM) - Dated:- 9-7-2015 - Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri P K Mittal, Adv For the Respondent : Ms Ranjana Jha, AR ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order denying Cenvat credit on various items like MS sheets, plates,joist, channel etc. used for the purpose of manufacture / installation of molasses tanks, boiler e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 76/110/96 TRU dated 2.12.1996 and Circular No. 964/7/2012 CE dated 2.2.2004 wherein the CBEC has clarified that those structural components which are to be used essentially as a part of Boiler system would be classified as parts of Boiler only and these structurals components are nothing but the parts and accessories of the Boiler and are entitled for cenvat credit. 4. On the other hand, learned AR opposed the contention of the learned Counsel and heavily relied on the decision of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur [2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri-LB)]. She also relied on the decision of Apex Court decision in the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills vs. CCE, Delhi III [2011 (270) ELT 465 (SC)] and Bharti Airtel Ltd. [2014-TIOL-1452-HC-MUM-ST]. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of capital goods. Therefore, the facts are different from the facts of Bharti Airtel Ltd.(supra). Moreover, in the case of Mundra Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd. vs. CCE [2015-TIOL-1288-HC-AMD-ST], the Hon ble High Court has held that the decision of Vandana Global Ltd. of Larger Bench of this Tribunal is not correct wherein the Hon ble High Court has observed that, We have carefully gone through the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. 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. It was further held that even if the new provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
