TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents necessary for invoking extended period under proviso to Section 11A (1) exists. Levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- In the facts and circumstances of the case there is no warrant in levying any penalty upon the Appellant. During the material period the position of law was not settled and there were divergent views expressed by the Courts / Tribunals leading to referral of the matter to Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd., Vs. CCE [ 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)] . Hon ble Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside the decision of the Tribunal s Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global M/S VANDANA GLOBAL LIMITED AND OTHERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2018 (5) TMI 305 - CHHATTI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Sponge Iron.For setting up of their Sponge Iron Plant they purchased 145.035 MT of Iron and Steel Materials like H.R. Plates, M.S. Plate, Flats, Beams, Channel, Chequered Coil, Angel etc. during April 2008 to March 2009 and claimed CENVAT Credit of Rs.5,51,616/-. The impugned Iron Steel materials are used for manufacture of Base Frame other ABC equipments, Base Frame for Kiln outlet Transfer Chute, Kiln Maintenance Platform, Conveyor Gallery, Head Tail Pully Frame, Conveyor Tustle Gravity Take-up, Feeding Discharge and Bag Fitter. 2.2 After EA2000 Audit, the Audit observation dated 01.02.2010 was issued. The Audit Team again visited the factor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. Additional Commissioner partially allowed CENVAT Credit of Rs.2,94,267/- on 75.930 MT of Iron and Steel materials. On appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)upheld the adjudication order and rejected the Appeal before him. Hence the present Appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld.Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Appellant, has submitted that the finding of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) disallowing CENVAT Credit is perverse. In the instant case, both the lower authorities haveseriously erred in holding Base Frames, Maintenance Platforms, etc as supporting structures whereas the Joint Verification report clearly states that the same as spares, components and accessories of Capital Goods which were structures only. 4. Ld.Authorized ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actured out of Iron and Steel materials squarely falls within the meaning of accessory under Rule 2(a) and therefore CENVAT Credit claimed in such Iron and Steel materials cannot be denied. 9. Further, Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars and Ors Vs. CCE reported in 2017-TIOL-1357-HC-MAD-CX while impliedly overruling the decision of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Vandana Global Ltd. held that even after 07.07.2009 explanation brought in by the said Notification dated 07.07.2009 CENVAT Credit on Iron and Steel materials, Cement etc used for making of support structures, construction of foundation etc cannot be denied as inputs in terms of main limb of Rule 2(k) so long as items fulfill criteria of used in o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant. During the material period the position of law was not settled and there were divergent views expressed by the Courts / Tribunals leading to referral of the matter to Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd., Vs. CCE cited (supra). 13. I find that the Hon ble Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside the decision of the Tribunal s Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global as reported in 2018 (16) GSTL 462 (Chhattisgarh). I further observe that the principle of user test also need to be considered while deciding the entitlement of assessee to avail CENVAT Credit as laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Vs. Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills Limited 2010 (255) ELT 481 (SC). Following the said decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aving 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 accessory is an integral part of the capital goods, (which, in turn, fall within the scope and ambit of the expression capital goods , referred to in Rule 2(a)(A)(i) of the 2004 Rules,) they would also qualify as capital goods. 44. In the facts of this case, we have to conclude that MS structurals, which support the plant and machinery, which are, in turn, used in the manufacture of sugar and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
