9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 842 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods - MS Angles, Shapes, Sections, Plates, Rods, Rounds, Beams, Joists and H.R. Coils/Sheets - Held that - there is no dispute as to the receipt of these inputs and consumption thereof for the stated purposes - Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars Vs CESTAT 2017 (7) TMI 524 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has specifically held that these items are eligible for availment of CENVAT credit - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
CENVAT credit on central excise duty paid on various inputs for fabrication of products. Analysis: The appeal was brought against an order-in-original regarding the CENVAT credit of Central Excise duty paid on inputs like MS Angles, Shapes, Plates, Rods, and Coils/Sheets used for fabrication of conveyor systems, furnaces, and storage tanks. The appellant argued that these items were used in or in relation to the manufacturing of final products, thus eligible for CENVAT credit under Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules 2004. However, the adjudicating authority concluded that since these items were structural in nature, CENVAT credit could not be availed. The authority relied on the judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global. Upon review, it was found that there was no dispute regarding the receipt and consumption of these inputs for the stated purposes. The learned counsel confirmed that CENVAT credit was not claimed on inputs used for constructing immovable property, leading to the issue being in line with decisions from the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The Tribunal highlighted that the reliance on the Vandana Global case by the learned AR and the adjudicating authority did not strengthen the Revenue's case, as this judgment had been overturned by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Mundra Port & SEZ Ltd. Based on the authoritative judicial pronouncements and the arguments presented, the Tribunal deemed the impugned order unsustainable. Consequently, the order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The decision was pronounced and dictated in open court by the Tribunal.
|
