2016 (8) TMI 488

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... herefore both these appeals are disposed of by this order. The dispute in both these appeals relates to disallowance of CENVAT credit for MS channels, MS beams, MS angles, HR coils/sheets and MS Joists used for construction and maintenance of structures for supporting capital goods and for construction of gypsum shed used for storing gypsum. For the sake, of convenience the facts of appeal No. E/238/2012 is taken. The brief facts of the present case are that appellant is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of cement falling under Tariff Heading 2523 2910/30/40 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and are availing CENVAT credit for various inputs and capital goods used in the manufacture of their final products. In appeal N .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) rejected the appeals of the appellant and confirmed the Orders-in-Original and now the appellant has filed the appeals before the Tribunal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the items used for fabrication of structure for supporting various pipelines and other items are covered by Rule 2(a)(A)(iii) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and hence credit cannot be denied. In support of his submission, he referred to and relied upon the Larger Bench ruling in the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd. vs. CCE: 1999 (108) E.L.T. 47 (LB) and Balapur Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Belgaum: 2002 (116) E.L.T. 312 (LB) and apex court ruling in the case of CCE, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd: 2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (SC). He further .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t is the aid by which the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the amendment to Rule 2(k) is not having retrospective implication and the amendment is effective prospectively. 3. On the other hand, the learned AR supported the findings in the impugned order and in support of it, he relied upon the following decisions. * Saraswati Sugar Mills vs. CCE, Delhi-III: 2011 (270) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) * Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. vs. UOI: 2013 (295) E.L.T. 20 (All.) * CCE, Ghaziabad vs. Rathi Steel & Power Ltd.: 2015 (321) E.L.T. 200 (All.) 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials on record. The issue in this case is whether the steel items viz., MS channels, MS plates, MS Rod sheets used for fabrication of sup .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X