TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erruled by 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 ]. The Hon'ble High Court has given a specific finding against the finding of retrospective operation of the amendment to the explanation to Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules holding that the said amendment will not be retrospectively applicable. Further, the said finding of the learned Adjudicating Authority is in violation of a catena of decisions of several High Courts and Supreme Court allowing the admissibility of credit on inputs used in the fabrication of support structures of capital goods. Similar issue came up for consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is also not sustainable on the main as well as the other Appellants. The impugned order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside - appeal allowed. - MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. SANJIV SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Atul Gupta, Advocate Shri Prakhar Shukla, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Sarweshwar T. Khairnar, Authorised Representative for the Respondent ORDER The present appeals have been filed by the Appellants against the impugned Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad (Adjudicating Authority) confirming the proposal, made vide the show cause notice dated 19.04.2012 for denial of credit availed on steel items used in the manufacture of supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... items obtained by it on grounds of their utilization in the manner provided hereinabove. 2. The show cause notice proposed denial of CENVAT Credit based on the ground that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global reported at 2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri.-LB) held that credit is not admissible after Explanation 2 was amended vide Notification No.16/2009-C.E. (N.T.), dated 07.07.2009 by inserting the words but shall not include cement, angles, channels, Centrally Twisted Deform bar (CTD) or Thermo Mechanically Treated bar (TMT) and other items used for construction of factory shed, building or laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods. 3. The learned Adjudicating Authority vide the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... illage Ranauli Latifpur, Vidyut Nagar, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.) under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. (iv) I impose a penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lacs only) upon Shri Piyush Raj, Vice President (Tech.) and Unit Head of Dadri Cement Works of M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Village Ranauli Latifpur, Vidyut Nagar, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.) under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Hence the present appeals before the Tribunal. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. We find that the show cause notice has been issued mainly based on the decision of Vandana Global (supra) and the same has been categorically overruled by Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court vide its Order reported at 2018 (16) G.S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led position of law, since items used by the respondent-assessee were used as structure to hold the capital goods, hence, it is wrong to say that respondents are not eligible to Cenvat credit. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the Tribunal has rightly allowed the appeal and the reasoning given by Tribunal cannot be said to be not cogent or correct appreciation of evidence on record. 7. Similar issue came up for consideration before Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd. vs. CCE reported at 2015 (39) S.T.R. 726 (Guj.) and before Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. vs. CESTAT, Chennai, 2015 (321) E.L.T. 209 (Mad.) wherein it was held that the exclusion incorporated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... steel items used for fabrication of capital goods and support structures has been allowed. Some of these cases are as under:- Mangalam Cement Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur-I, Interim Order No.14/2018 dated 05.03.2018 reported at 2018 (260) E.L.T. 737 (Tri.-LB). SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur, 2016-TIOL-2769-CESTAT-DEL. Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. CCE, Indore, 2016-TIOL-3000-CESTAT-DEL. 10. The availment of credit on PSC poles is covered by the decision of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Aditya Cement vs. UOI reported at 2008 (221) E.L.T. 362 (Raj.). It has been held that the railway track material used for transporting of coal and products of cements are eligible for credit as without supply of fuel the plant do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
