TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 540X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... YA ALLOY INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2014 (9) TMI 406 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] had disapproved the judgment of the Larger Bench. Thus, the Cenvat credit of the items along with Service tax credit of inward transportation for such items is an eligible Cenvat credit upto 06/07/2009 and hence we are of the view that the appeal to this extent ought to be allowed. The usage of various iron and steels items is to be analysed in light of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR VERSUS M/S RAJASTHAN SPINNING WEAVING MILLS LTD. [ 2010 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] . In this judgement, the Hon ble Supreme Court has referred to the user test outlined in the case of COMMISSIONER OF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Appellant during the course of investigation had deposited an amount of ₹ 94,46,102/- subject to finality of the proceedings and to safeguard itself from any unwarranted interest liability. Based on the above, a Show Cause Notice dated 04/03/2012 was issued to the Appellant, alleging wrongful availment of Cenvat credit of ₹ 97,55,149/- on the items which are outside the purview of the definition of 'input' as defined under Section 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, in respect of goods and also does not qualify as input services as defined under Rule 2(l) of the said Rules. In reply to the Show cause notice, the Appellant company submitted that they are entitled to the Cenvat credit of inputs upto 06/07/2009 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 018 b. MANGLAM CEMENT LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR-I 2018 (360) E.L.T. 737 (Tri. - LB) c. COMMR. OF CUS. C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM-II VERSUS A.P.P. MILLS LTD. 2013 (291) E.L.T. 585 (TRI. - BANG.) d. SANGHVI FORGING ENGINEERING LTD. VERSUS COMMR. OF C. EX., VADODARA-II 2014 (302) E.L.T. 136 (TRI. - AHMD.) e. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., TIRUCHIRAPALLI VERSUS INDIA CEMENTS LTD 2012 (285) E.L.T. 341 (MAD.) f. COMMISSIONER OF CGST CX, LUCKNOW VS DSCL SUGAR 2019 (367) E.L.T. 836 (All.) g. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., LUCKNOW VERSUS MANAKPUR CHINI MILLS 2019 (367) E.L.T. 889 (All.) 4. He further stated that the issue involved as to the eligibility of Cenvat credit on Cement, TMT Bar, Beam, Angle, Ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eligible Cenvat credit upto 06/07/2009 and hence we are of the view that the appeal to this extent ought to be allowed. 8. We find that the usage of various iron and steels items is to be analysed in light of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills Ltd. reported as 2010 (255) ELT 481 (SC). In this judgement, the Hon ble Supreme Court has referred to the user test outlined in the case of CCEx., Coimbatore Vs. Jawahar Mills reported as 2001 (132) ELT 3 (SC), which lays down the ratio in determining whether particular goods could be categorized as capital goods or not. 9. As regards the period post 07/07/2009, it is seen from the records that the Appellant has already reversed a subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
