9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant - E/238 & 239/2012 - Final Order No. 20625-20626 / 2016 - Dated:- 10-8-2016 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. R. Parthasarathy, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. N. Jagadish, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeals have been filed by the appellant directed against the Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (A) dated 27.10.2011 vide which the Commissioner (A) has upheld the order of Assistant Commissioner and rejected the appeal filed by Madras Cement Ltd., which is the appellant. In both the appeals, the issue involved is common and therefore both these appeals are disposed of by this order. The dispute in both these appeals relates to disallowance of CENVAT credit for MS channel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir objections, a show-cause notice dated 16.4.2010 was issued to recover ₹ 1,59,161/- along with penalty and interest. The Assistant Commissioner vide his order dated 30.9.2010 confirmed the demand by denying the CENVAT Credit mainly relying upon the ruling of Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE. The Asst. Commissioner also imposed the penalty equivalent to CENVAT credit disallowed under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules besides ordering recovering of interest. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (A) and the Commissioner (A) rejected the appeals of the appellant and confirmed the Orders-in-Original and now the appellant has filed the appeals before the Tribunal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ras Cements Limited vs. CCE, Hyderabad. 2.1 The learned counsel further submitted that CENVAT Credit on these goods was denied mainly on the basis of Larger Bench ruling in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. He also submitted that prior to the Vandana Global Ltd., various Benches of the Hon ble Tribunal had held that CENVAT credit was admissible for items used for fabrication of structures for supporting various pipelines and other items. The Hon ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Mundra Port SEZ vs. CCE: 2015 (39) S.T.R. 726 (Guj.) observed that in the judgment of Vandana Global case, the Tribunal has not stated what is the aid by which the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the amendment to Rule 2(k) is not having retrospectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ble Supreme Court of India in the appellant s own case reported in 2015 (325) E.L.T. 239 (SC) has held that the goods which are used in construction of concrete structure and foundation on which the various heavy machineries in a cement plant was to be erected are entitled for CENVAT Credit. The Hon ble Supreme Court followed the principle laid down in Vikram Cement s case and held that the assessee was not liable to pay any duty and set aside the CESTAT order remanding the appeal. In view of the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in the appellant s own case, I hold that the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit on the disputed items. Consequently, both the appeals of the appellant are allowed by setting aside the impugned orders with c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
