TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.E/25071/2013 - Final Order No. A-30513/2016 - Dated:- 7-6-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S. Member(Judicial) Shri G.Prahlad, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A.K.Nirala, AR for the Respondent [Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.] 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the denial of Cenvat credit of duty paid on MS angles, Channels, Plates etc.. 2. The appellants are engaged in manufacture of cement and cement clinker and are registered with Central Excise Department. They are availing Cenvat credit on capital goods and inputs. During the month of April, 2010 the appellants availed CENVAT credit of duty amounting to ₹ 38,231/-, being the balance 50% of the capital goods credit relating to the period 01-04-2009 to 06-07-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documents (2) that appellant did not disclose the use of such items in ER-1 returns. The learned counsel pointed out that all invoices were produced to establish the details and quantity of subject items used. That there is no specific column in ER-1 returns to declare details of usage of each item. That appellants have furnished copies of purchase orders, statement showing exact use of items along with issue slips and purchase requisites. That these would be sufficient evidence to show that subject items were used for capital goods. He pleaded that the appeal may be allowed. 4. Refuting the above contentions, the learned AR Shri A.K.Nirala, submitted that the Larger Bench of Cestat in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. CCE, Raipur 2010-TI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal which held that Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, inserted vide Notification No.16/2009-CE(NT),dated 07-07-2009 is clarificatory in nature and has retrospective effect. The Tribunal in the case of Commissioner Vs A.P.P.Mills Ltd, 2013(291) ELT 585(Tri-Bang) observed that the judgment laid in Vandana Global Ltd case (supra) is no longer good law as the view of the Tribunals Larger bench was taken much before the Hon ble Apex court decided the case of Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills Ltd 2010(255) ELT 481(SC). The Hon ble Apex Court in this case held that credit is admissible on MS items used for erection of capital goods when without such structural, the machinery could not be erected or put to use. The sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
