TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se duty levied on them. The inputs on which credit was taken were mostly structural items and welding electrodes. Structural steel items such as HR Plates, M.S. Channels, M.S. Beam, TMT Bar, CTD Bar etc and welding electrodes were used by them in the manufacture of capital goods, and also components and accessories of capital goods which were further used in the manufacture of final product. Revenue sought to disallow the CENVAT Credit taken on these items and vide the impugned order, the CENVAT Credit amounting to ₹ 2,78,63,693/- was ordered to be recovered along with interest and equal amount of mandatory penalty. The period for which demand was made was from 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 (upto September, 2010) and the show cause notice was issued on 29/04/2011. The CENVAT Credit was disallowed in the impugned order on the ground that these were not inputs/capital goods and therefore CENVAT Credit taken thereon was inadmissible. 2. The appellant has challenged the impugned order on merits as well as on time bar. On merits, their arguments are mainly as follows:- i). Cenvat Credit on structural steel items used by them classified to be considered as capital goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Both, the appellants as well as the DR have submitted written notes summarizing their arguments. The appellants in their note have re-emphasized all the points already urged in the appeal memorandum as well as during the hearing before the Bench. He has submitted that the credit was taken by the appellants during the period 2006-07 to September, 2010 well before the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur-I , 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri-LB). 6. The learned AR has reiterated the view taken by the adjudicating authority. They have further placed reliance on the following case laws : (a) Vandana Global Ltd. Vs CCE, Raipur , 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri.-LB); (b) Daya Sugar vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I, 2015 (316) ELT 394 (All.); (c) Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut, 2016 (334) ELT 58 (All.); (d) Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (Adj.) , Delhi, 2016(42) STR 249 (Tri.-LB); (e) Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III , 2014 (35) STR 865 (Bom); (f) Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) and other items used for construction of factory shed, building or laying of foundation or making or structures for support of capital goods]; Further, the term Capital Goods has been defined in Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, which reads as under : (a) Capital Goods means :- (A) the following goods, namely :- (i) all goods falling under Chapter 82, Chapter 84, Chapter 85, Chapter 90 [heading 6805, grinding wheels and the like, and parts thereof falling under heading 6804] of the First Schedule to the Excise Tariff Act; (ii) pollution control equipment; (iii) components, spares and accessories of the goods specified at (i) and (ii); (iv) moulds and dies, jigs and fixtures; (v) refractories and refractory materials; (vi) tubes and pipes and fittings thereof; and (vii) storage tank, used - (1) in the factory of the manufacturer of the final products, but does not include any equipment or appliance used in an office; or (2) for providing output service, . 9. We proceed to decide the appeal on the two following issues : (i) Entitlement of Cenvat Credit on welding electrod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce of the same by citing the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd . (supra) and other judgments. Further, he has brought to our notice and emphasized the amendment carried out in Explanation-II to Rule 2(a) which defines the term Input w.e.f. 07.07.2009. It has further been pleaded that the Cenvat Credit claimed for the period prior to this will be covered within the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra). 14. The Larger Bench decision in Vandana Global Ltd. s case (supra) laid down that even if the iron and articles were used as supporting structurals, they would not be eligible for the credit. Considering the amendment made w.e.f. 07.07.2009 as a clarification amendment and hence to be considered retrospectively. However, we find that the said decision of the Larger Bench was considered by the Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd. , 2015 (04) LCX0197, wherein ti was observed that the amendment made on 07.07.2009 cannot be held to be clarificatory and as such would be applicable only prospectively. 15. We find that the controversy can be laid to rest by mak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
