9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 804X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d By R. Sudhakar, J.) Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Tribunal in dismissing the appeal filed by it, the Revenue is before this Court challenging the said order by filing the present appeal. This Court, vide order dated 22.10.2010, framed the following substantial questions of law for consideration:- "1) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is correct in holding that Notification No.25/96-C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the issues covered in this appeal are squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in the respondent/assessee's own case in India Cements Ltd. - Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy-1 (2013 (297) ELT 508 (Mad.)), wherein this Court has answered the issue against the Revenue. 3. A Division Bench of this Court, considering similar issue in the case of the very same as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner of Central Excise v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd), this Court rejected the Revenue's contention and affirmed the view of the Tribunal that the impugned goods were capital goods entitled to credit under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules. 13. It is seen from the facts narrated in the case before us that the item in question were classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.31 and they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o hesitation in accepting the case of the assessee. Quite apart, even going by the circular, we agree with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the assessee that the amendment under Notification No.25/96 dated 31.8.1996 has to be read only as clarificatory and retrospective effect has to be given for availing modvat credit. In view of this reasoning, we find that capital goods itself w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
