9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 559 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - input - M.S.Angles, M.S.Joint beams and TOR Steel - Whether the appellant is entitled to input credit in terms of Rule 2(k) of CCR 2004? - Held that - decision in the case of M/s.Thiruarooran Sugars and another V. CESTAT and another 2017 (7) TMI 524 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , relied upon, where it was held that structurals, cement, as also, iron and steel, which are used to erect foundations, would come within the definition of input as they form part of the capital goods, which, in turn, are used in the manufacture of final product. The manner in which the Revenue seeks to read the provisions of Explanation 2 is flawed for the reason that the said Explanation cannot restrict the scope and ambit of the main provision, i.e., Rule 2k(i). Explanation 2 cannot be read in a manner that it constricts, the scope and ambit of the main provision, i.e., Rule 2k(i). - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. Interpretation of substantial questions of law related to CENVAT credit on specific goods. 3. Entitlement to input credit under Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Issue 1: Appeal against Tribunal's Order The judgment involves five appeals challenging the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeals were directed against various orders dated between 2010 and 2012. The questions of law raised in these appeals primarily revolve around the Tribunal's interpretation and application of specific notifications and precedents related to CENVAT credit on certain goods. Issue 2: Interpretation of Substantial Questions of Law The substantial questions of law framed for consideration in the appeals include the effect of a specific notification prior to its effective date, the sustainability of relying on a particular precedent for disallowing CENVAT credit, and the qualification of certain goods as capital goods. The judgment refers to a previous case where similar questions were answered in favor of the Assessee, leading to the setting aside of the Tribunal's orders in the present appeals. Issue 3: Entitlement to Input Credit An additional question raised during the hearing pertains to the appellant's entitlement to input credit under Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The judgment indicates that the questions of law in the current appeals align with a previous judgment that ruled in favor of the Assessee, resulting in the setting aside of the Tribunal's orders and the disposal of the appeals accordingly. In conclusion, the High Court of Madras, in a judgment delivered by Rajiv Shakdher, J., addressed multiple appeals challenging the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's orders. The court considered substantial questions of law related to CENVAT credit on specific goods and the entitlement to input credit under relevant rules. The judgment referenced a prior case where similar legal issues were decided in favor of the Assessee, leading to the setting aside of the Tribunal's orders in the current appeals. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
|
