TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is entitled to Cenvat credit on the same as Rule 2 (l) of Cenvat Credit Rules provides that an assessee is entitled to Cenvat credit, on equipments utilised directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and the clearing of final products, upto the place of removal. Here the appellant, manufacturer cannot take place of excisable goods being Sugar et cetera, without repair and maintenance of capital equipment like sugar Cane cutter et cetera, I hold that the appellant is entitled the cenvat credit on the same. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief - Ex. Appeal Nos. 280 And 2904/2010 - Final Order Nos. A/70041-70042/2016 - Dated:- 30-11-2015 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. CCEx., Raipur: 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri.-LB), wherein the Larger Bench has held that foundation and supporting structures embedded to earth can be categorised as capital assets but shall not qualify as capital goods as per definition in Cenvat credit Rules 2004. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) however, reduced the penalty to ₹ 2,50,000/- under Rule 15 (1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, but confirmed the disallowance of Cenvat credit with interest. In the impugned order dated 30/9/11 for the period May, 2008 to December 2009, on similar observations, the denial of Cenvat credit has been upheld reducing the amount of penalty to ₹ 50,000/-. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cetera, used in fabrication of a new multi-effect evaporating plant to substantially reduce the quantity of affluent in the distillery and the credit was disallowed, as the revenue was of the view that the steel items in question are not eligible for Cenvat credit. This Tribunal relying on the ruling of Honourable Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE Bangalore II Vs. SLR Steels Ltd.: 2012 (280) ELT 176 (Kar.) and relying on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur versus Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.: 2010 (255) ELT 481 (SC), held that the steel items used in the fabrication of pollution control equipment, would be eligible for Cenvat credit and Cenvat credit cannot be denied on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise, Nagpur Vs. Lloyds Metals Engg. Ltd.: 2014 (309) ELT 533 (Tri.-Mumbai), therein the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed Cenvat credit on items like MS Bars etc. which were used by the assessee for setting up the capital goods i.e. kiln, cooler chimney in the factory. It was held that there is no doubt that the explanation amended in 2009 of Rule 2 (k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, is clarificatory. Despite that the Honourable Apex Court in Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (supra) held that Cenvat credit on the above said items is available if same have been used for setting up capital goods. Accordingly, following the ruling of the Apex Court, as it overides on the Larger Bench ruling of this Tribunal in Vandana Global&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
