Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (12) TMI 1531

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o 7th July 2009). Under such un-amended provisions of Rule 2 (k) of the rules, there were restrictions for not allowing the Cenvat benefit on those structural items - Since specific restrictions were brought into the definition clause only with effect from 7th July 2009, Cenvat benefit on such disputed goods cannot be denied for the period prior to such effective date. Retrospective applicability of the definition of input contained in Rule 2 (k) of the Rules - Held that:- Though the Larger Bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Vandana Global Limited [2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)], has upheld the views expressed by Revenue, but the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of said appellant M/S VANDANA GLOBAL LIMITED .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... enefit either under the definition of capital goods or inputs . On pointing out such discrepancy regarding availment of wrongful credit, the appellant had reversed the Cenvat Credit under protest. Thereafter, show cause proceedings were initiated against the appellant, seeking for disallowance of Cenvat Credit, payment of interest for delayed reversal of credit and imposition of penalty. The matter was adjudicated against the appellant vide order dated 14.07.2009, wherein the proposals made in the show cause notice were confirmed. On appeal, Learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 27.08.2010 has upheld the adjudged demand confirmed on the appellant. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 27.08.2010, the appellan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e that the disputed goods were used by the appellant in the fabrication of structure of capital goods namely sugar mill machinery, boiler house, power generation and power house, which are essential plants for ultimate manufacture of the final product. The period in dispute is from April 2006 to December 2007, which was covered under the un-amended definition of input (effective up to 7th July 2009). Under such un-amended provisions of Rule 2 (k) of the rules, there were restrictions for not allowing the Cenvat benefit on those structural items. Since specific restrictions were brought into the definition clause only with effect from 7th July 2009, Cenvat benefit on such disputed goods cannot be denied for the period prior to such effective .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates