TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lenged by the assessee before the Hon ble Chhattisgarh High Court in M/S VANDANA GLOBAL LIMITED AND OTHERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2018 (5) TMI 305 - CHHATTISGARH, HIGH COURT] , wherein the Tribunal s decision had been set aside - the contentions of the Appellant is agreed upon that the very basis followed by the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has now been settled in their favour. In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the various steel items have been used for the purpose of setting up of coal washery plant as also certified by the Chartered Engineer and have been duly verified by the lower authorities at the adjudication stage. Therefore, applying the user test principle, as f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the impugned goods vide their letter dated 12.09.2014 was submitted to the Department. The Appellant further states that in the instant case the capital goods manufactured out of iron and steel materials are manufactured separately and are attached to the foundations/structures subsequent to their emergence by way of bolting/welding for wobble free operations which were verified by the Departmental authorities in joint verification. As per the physical verification report dated 20.02.2015 of emergent goods manufactured out of the impugned goods are specified capital goods under Rule 2(a)(A) and the impugned goods are inputs in terms of the amended provision of Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Show Cause Notice dated 01.10.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he judgement of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd. [2017 (349) ELT 133 (Mad.)]. He further submits that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global (supra) has been held to be not good law in the following cases:- i) Mundra Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd. Vs. CCE (2015) 39 STR 725 (Guj.)] ii) Surya Alloys Industries Ltd. Vs. UOI [2014 (305) ELT 47 (Cal.)] iii) Thiru Arooran Sugars And Ors. Vs. CCE [2017 (355) ELT (373) (Mad.)] 3. The Ld.Authorized Representative for the Department justified the impugned order and submits that the Appeal may be dismissed being devoid of any merits. 4. Heard both sides and perused the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Credit Rules, 2004 which come into force on 7-7-2009 was clarificatory amendment as there is nothing to suggest in the Amending Act that amendment made in Explanation 2 was clarificatory in nature. Wherever the Legislature wants to clarify the provision, it clearly mentions intention in the notification itself and seeks to clarify existing provision. Even, if the new provision is added then it will be new amendment and cannot be treated to be clarification on particular thing or goods and/or input and as such, the amendment could operate only prospectively. 6. That view has been quoted with approval by the Madras High Court in M/s. Thiruarooran Sugars v. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CMA 3814/2014 and conn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are dismissed. However, no order as to costs. In the above decision, the Hon ble Chhattisgarh High Court has agreed with the decisions of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Ports Special Economic Zone Limited [2015 (39) STR 276 (Gujrat)]and the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars vs. CESTAT [2017 (355) ELT 373(Tri. Del)]. In the said decisions, it has been held that the amendment made in the Credit Rules on 07.07.2009 to restrict the credit on structural items cannot be considered to be retrospective in nature. Therefore, the reliance placed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the decision of the Larger Bench in Vandana Global (Supra) to disallow a portion of the credit cannot be sustaine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s long as it could be shown that the item in issue was an integral part of the machinery, i.e., capital goods, it would fall in the definition of component and thus, by logical extension, come within the ambit of capital goods . 43.1 To be noted, Hon ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, (as he then was), was party to both the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court i.e., Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited as well as Saraswathi Sugar Mills Limited case. 43.2 Therefore, quite clearly, the two judgments referred to above cannot be read in the manner, as the Revenue is seeking to read them, that is, at cross purposes. In our opinion, the ratio of the two judgments, is that, as long as it is shown that the component and/or access ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
