2009 (6) TMI 815

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under heading 84 of the First Schedule to the CETA, 1985. A show-cause notice was served on the respondent alleging that they have wrongly availed input credit on Tungsten Carbide Tools as input instead of capital goods. 3. The adjudicating authority disallowed the credit of 40324/- on Tungsten Carbide Tools by holding that they are capital goods. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 3-6-2008 held that Tungsten Carbide Tools are capital goods and they are eligible to take only 50% of the credit of the capital goods in one financial year and allowed the appeal of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e case of Union Carbide India Ltd. (supra) and Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra) as Union Carbide India decision was in respect of interpretation of the word input and the decision in the case of Jawahar Mills case was in respect of interpretation of the word capital goods . The finding of the Larger Bench is that the goods which are claimed as input cannot get credit as capital goods in the context that if a particular goods qualify as an input then it cannot qualify as capital goods at the same time. It does not mean that if the assessee wrongly considered the goods as input and avails the credit as input and subsequently the assessee cannot claim the credit as capital goods . He also draw my attention to the decision of the Trib .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) E.L.T. 357 (Tri.-Del.) (b) Grindwell Norton Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 409 (Tri.-Mum) (c) Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Perfect Spinners - 2004 (173) E.L.T. 418 (Tri.-Mumbai) 6. He further relied on the apex Court decision in the case of Share Medical Care v. Union of India - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) wherein it was held that even if the applicant does not claim benefit under a particular notification at the initial stage, he is not debarred prohibited or estopped from claiming such benefit at a later stage. 7. From the above discussion it is clear that the respondent initially claimed Tungsten Carbide Tool as input and the same were held by the Commissioner (Appeals .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X