TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h items - appellant is entitled to CENVAT Credit. The second contention in the show cause notice is that the appellant could have taken only 50% of the CENVAT Credit during that year and another 50% has to be taken in the following year - HELD THAT:- This issue is no longer relevant at this stage since several years have passed. It is never the law that the appellant was entitled to only 50% CENVAT Credit only that he can take 50% in one year and 50% in the following year. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Central Excise Appeal No.907 of 2011 - Final Order No. 77053/2019 - Dated:- 25-11-2019 - HON BLE MR. P.K.CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR.P.VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Alok Arora, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the year and another 50% in the subsequent year. Therefore, it was felt that by taking 100% credit in the same year, the appellant had contravened the provisions of Rule 4 of CCR 2004. Accordingly, three show cause notices were issued to the appellant as follows: S.No SCN No. Date Period covered Amount of duty Inputs on which credit availed. 1. V(72)/15/SCNMC/SBPI/ 18/2007/4588A, dated 16.03.2007 04/06 to 08/06 1,27,10,280 M.S. angles, Beams Channels, Plates, M.S. Rounds/RODs, Liquid Oxygen/ Oxygen Gas, Paints, Pipes Tubes of steel, spare for control valve All ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant submits that the Ld. Adjudicating authority had relied on the case law of Vandana Global Limited [2010(253)ELT 440 (Tri.-LB)] in which Hon ble Tribunal has held that CENVAT Credit on steel and cement items used for foundation for building support structures of capital goods have no nexus with the manufacture and hence they are not eligible for CENVAT Credit either as capital goods under Rule 2(a) or as inputs under Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He would submit that this decision of the Hon ble Larger Bench of CESTAT was reversed by Hon ble High Court of Chattisgarh in the case of Vandana Global Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Raipur [2018(16)GSTL 462 (Chattisgarh)]. It is now well settled that CE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Limited (supra). This view was reversed by the Hon ble High Court of Chattisgarh in the case of Vandana Global Limited (supra). We find that identical view was taken by the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Sai Sahmita Storages Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and by the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd., India Cements Limited (supra). In view of the above, we find the issue is no longer res integra and the appellant is entitled to CENVAT Credit on the disputed items. The demand, therefore, needs to be set aside. 10. The second contention in the show cause notice is that the appellant could have taken only 50% of the CENVAT Credit during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
