9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (1) TMI 927 - HC - Central ExciseValidity of order passed by the Tribunal - Whether the order of the Tribunal is vitiated inasmuch as it fails to take into account relevant aspects viz. a. mode of annexation b. object of annexation c. beneficial enjoyment and thus stands vitiated? - Whether the first respondent ought to have allowed credit under the Capital Goods Scheme if not under the Inputs Scheme? HELD THAT - In the light of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/S. INDIA CEMENTS LTD. VERSUS THE CUSTOM, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, 2015 (3) TMI 661 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein an identical question was considered and the only difference being that the case arose under the CENVAT Credit Rules, which subsequently stood substituted by the MODVAT Rules. The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant/assessee.
Issues involved:
1. Challenge to the order dated 29.5.2008 under Section 35G of the Central Excise Tax Act, 1944. 2. Substantial questions of law regarding the order of the Tribunal and allowance of credit under the Capital Goods Scheme. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellant challenged the order dated 29.5.2008 under Section 35G of the Central Excise Tax Act, 1944, which was made in Final Order No.517/2008 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The appeal was admitted based on substantial questions of law related to the order. Issue 2: The substantial questions of law raised in the appeal included whether the Tribunal's order failed to consider relevant aspects such as mode of annexation, object of annexation, and beneficial enjoyment, and whether credit under the Capital Goods Scheme should have been allowed. The High Court referred to a previous decision in the case of CCE Vs. India Cements Ltd. where similar questions were addressed, leading to a decision against the Revenue. The High Court cited previous judgments in similar cases involving the appellant, where Cenvat Credit on capital goods used for civil construction activities was allowed under the Cenvat Rules, 2004. The Court emphasized that the matter was no longer res integra and that the Tribunal had rightfully followed previous decisions in favor of the Assessee. The Court also referred to specific paragraphs from previous orders to support its decision. In conclusion, after considering the arguments presented by both parties and reviewing the Tribunal's order, the High Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it. The Court allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and ruling in favor of the appellant/assessee on the substantial questions of law.
|
