TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 394 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] has already allowed input credit. By respectfully following the apex court's decision (supra) and the Tribunal's decision (supra), we hold that appellants are eligible for credit on items used in the plant and machinery for manufacture of cement and clinkers under rule 57Q (1) of the CER 1994. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order to the extent of denial of credit and the consequential demand of recovery. Impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No.E/70/2004 - FINAL ORDER No.41745/2015 - Dated:- 22-12-2015 - Shri R. Periasami and Shri P.K. Choudhary, JJ. For The Appellant : Shri R. Parthasarathy, Consultant For The Respondent : Shri K.P.Mural ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in their final order dt. 7.10.2015 in the case of Madras Cements Ltd. Vs CCE Trichy [2015 (325) ELT 239 (SC)] set aside this Tribunal's order and held that appellants are eligible for credit as these items are used for construction purpose for plant and machinery. He also relied Tribunal's decision in the case of India Cements Ltd. Vs 2010 (253) ELT 510 (Tri-Chennai) for the input Aquachem used for purifying water used in manufacture of cement where the Tribunal allowed the input credit. He relied Board's circular No.27/110/96-TRU dt. 2.12.1996 where the Board has clarified that credit is eligible under rule 57Q for all parts, components and accessories which are used with the capital goods irrespective of the classifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted. On that basis, it is argued that the goods in question were captively used for the construction of the plant and had nothing to do with the mining which is accepted by the Department itself in the show cause notice. 6. After going through the show cause notice, we find that the aforesaid contention of the learned senior counsel for the assessee is correct. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that there was no need to remand the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) as on admitted facts when the principle laid down in Vikram Cement's case is applied, the assessee was not liable to pay any duty. The order of the CESTAT remitting the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) is thus, set aside allowing these appeals. By virtue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
