9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Union of India v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2008 -TMI - 33137 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) wherein it was held that the cement is used in the construction of foundation and it cannot be said to be eligible capital goods - Decided against the assessee - E/199-201/2008 - 344/2011, - Dated:- 18-7-2011 - S/Shri S.S. Kang, P.G. Chacko, M. Veeraiyan, JJ. Shri R.K. Singla, JCDR, for the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al goods. 4. We find that the present respondent wants to avail credit in respect of duty paid on cement which is used for foundation/supporting structure for machinery as Capital Goods . The Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (supra) has held that such credit is not admissible. The Hon ble High Court held as under : 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore has rightly found that in the facts and circumstances of the case, cement cannot be considered as inputs. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that cement has been used in the construction of foundation for machineries and used as a building material. The foundation made of cement in our view does not fall under the category of capital goods as defined under Rule 2(b) of the Cenvat Cre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Cenvat Credit Rules of 2004. Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Hon ble High Court, the issue referred is no longer res integra. The question referred to the Larger Bench is answered in favour of Revenue and the appeals are to be listed before jurisdictional bench for final hearing and disposal. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
