TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9-C.E.(N.T.) dated 07.07.2009, which are to the effect that cement, angles, channels, CTD Bars, TMT and other items used for construction of factory shed, building or laying foundation or making of structure for support of capital goods were excluded from the purview of the definition of input. The issue as to whether the amendment of the definition w.e.f. 07.07.2009 will apply prospectively or will have retrospective application, was the subject matter of dispute before various judicial forums. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Port and Special Economic Zone Ltd. [2015 (5) TMI 663 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] have held that the explanation inserted in Rule 2 (k) is not clarificatory in nature and the same is effective from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported in 2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri. LB). 3. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the disputed goods were used within the factory for fabrication/ manufacture of various capital goods like Limestone Crusher, Raw Mill Electro Static Precipitator Kiln/ Preheater, Coal Mill, Cement Mill, Packing Plant, Cable Trays etc., classified under Chapter 84/ 85 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The ld. Advocate submits that since those disputed goods were used for fabrication / manufacture of eligible capital goods, cenvat benefit on the disputed goods should be available to the appellant. The alternate pleas of the appellant is that since the disputed goods were used within the factory for fabrication/installation of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngles, channels, CTD Bars, TMT and other items used for construction of factory shed, building or laying foundation or making of structure for support of capital goods were excluded from the purview of the definition of input. The issue as to whether the amendment of the definition w.e.f. 07.07.2009 will apply prospectively or will have retrospective application, was the subject matter of dispute before various judicial forums. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Port and Special Economic Zone Ltd. (Supra) have held that the explanation inserted in Rule 2 (k) is not clarificatory in nature and the same is effective from the date, when the same was brought in to the statute book. The relevant paragraph in the said judgment i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
