9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 77 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - steel items namely, M.S. Channels, M.S. Plates, M.S. Flats etc. - denied on the ground that the said goods are not inputs used in or in relation to manufacture of the final product - Held that - the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the decision in the case of M/s. Topworth Steels and Powers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur 2016 (9) TMI 1229 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that the period involved is prior to July, 2009, and thus, the embargo created in the definition of input after 07.07.2009 would have no application for denying the cenvat benefit. - Since the issue involved in this case is prior to 2009, the amended definition of input w.e.f. 07.07.2009 is not applicable to the facts of this case - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Denial of cenvat credit on steel items as inputs for manufacturing. Analysis: The appeal challenged the denial of cenvat credit on steel items like M.S. Channels, M.S. Plates, M.S. Flats, etc., by the Department. The denial was based on the argument that these goods were not inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product. The appellant argued that the period in question was before July 2009, and thus, the amended definition of 'input' post that date should not apply. The appellant relied on various legal precedents to support this argument, including a judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The appellant also cited previous decisions where cenvat benefit on similar disputed goods had been allowed. The Department, represented by the ld. DR for the Revenue, reiterated the findings of the impugned order. However, the Member (Judicial) of the Tribunal noted that the issue in question was covered by the decisions cited by the appellant's advocate. Since the matter pertained to a period before 2009, the amended definition of 'input' from July 2009 onwards was deemed inapplicable. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, granting any consequential benefits as per the law. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in the Open Court.
|
