9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Flanges falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 were denied on the ground that these items are neither 'capital goods' nor 'inputs' in terms of Rule 2(a) and Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 respectively. 1.1. The period of dispute in the present case is 2006-09 whereas the Show Cause Notice in the instant case has been issued on 09.02.2012 by invoking the extended period of limitation. 2. After hearing the parties, we find that the appellant has been able to show the usage of the said items in fabrication of their capital goods, without which no manufacturing activity can take place. The same is supported by the certificate issued by a Chartered Engineer. 2.1. Moreover, we find that during the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cited as precedent or as relied upon by the Tribunal in different other matters. The Gujarat High Court in Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd. - 2015 (39) S.T.R. 726 (Guj.) referred to the contents of the amendment, to the extent it is relevant for the purpose of this case and held as follows : "We do not find that amendment made in the Cenvat 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 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gars (supra) on all fours.
9. Resultantly, we answer the questions formulated in these appeals in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue.
10. In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed setting aside the Tribunal's decision impugned in each of those appeals. The appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. However, no order as to costs."
3.1. As the appellant has been able to establish that the items in question have been used in the fabrication of their capital goods, in these circumstances, we hold that the appellant has correctly availed the CENVAT Credit.
4. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
( Dictated and pronounced in the open court ) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
