9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 264 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - inputs - goods namely steel plates, HR plates, HR coils, MS Bar, MS Beam, MS Joists, GC Sheets, etc - period from March, 1995 to September, 2003 - HELD THAT - The appeal pertains to the period March, 1995 to September, 2003, the adjudicating authority decided the matter solely on the basis of Larger Bench decision in the case of VANDANA GLOBAL LTD. VERSUS CCE 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) wherein, it was held that the amendment of Notification No. 16/2009-CE (NT) dated 07.07.2009 has a retrospective effect and accordingly, even for the period prior to such amendment the credit is not admissible. This decision was reversed by the 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 adjudicating authority needs to give a fresh look in the entire case in the light of the various judgements given subsequent to the reversal of larger bench decision in the case of VANDANA GLOBAL by the Hon ble High Court of Chhattisgarh - the appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order.
Issues:
Whether the appellant is eligible for cenvat credit in respect of goods as inputs for the period from March, 1995 to September, 2003. Analysis: The appellant contended that the denial of cenvat credit by the adjudicating authority was based on a larger bench decision in the case of VANDANA GLOBAL, which was subsequently reversed by the Chhattisgarh High Court. The appellant relied on various judgments to support their claim, including CCE & ST, Rajkot Vs. Sanghi Industries Ltd., MUNDRA PORTS & SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER, and others. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat also held that the assessee is entitled to cenvat credit for the goods in question. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority's decision was based solely on the VANDANA GLOBAL case and emphasized that subsequent judgments have provided different perspectives on the issue. Consequently, the Tribunal opined that a fresh examination of the case in light of the subsequent judgments was necessary. The Tribunal observed that the appeal pertained to the period from March, 1995 to September, 2003, and the adjudicating authority's decision was primarily influenced by the VANDANA GLOBAL case. However, the decision in VANDANA GLOBAL was overturned by the Chhattisgarh High Court. Considering the subsequent judgments by various high courts and tribunals, the Tribunal concluded that a reevaluation of the case was warranted. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for a fresh order, emphasizing the need to reconsider the matter in light of the judgments subsequent to the reversal of the VANDANA GLOBAL decision by the Chhattisgarh High Court.
|
