9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rication of capital goods etc., was contentious during the relevant period and therefore extended period is not invokable. Whether MS angles, channels, HR plates, etc., used for fabrication of capital goods is eligible for credit has been I held in favor of the assessee in the case of India Cements Ltd., [2015 (3) TMI 661 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ]. The period involved as evidenced by the invoices is prior to 07.07.2009 - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of the assessee. - E/3160/2011 - A/31376/2016 - Dated:- 7-12-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) Shri. B. Venugopal, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. P.S. Reddy, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER [ Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S. ] Brie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... items are dated prior to 07.07.2009 and therefore, the credit ought to have been allowed. The Ld. Counsel further adverted to the audit report dated 01.04.2009 and submitted that department conducted audit for the period 12/2006 to 10/2008 and the credit availed by the appellant on MS items as well as welding electrodes had come to the knowledge of the department. However, no Show Cause Notice was issued for this period, which would establish that department accepted the availment of credit. Thereafter, an audit was conducted and the present Show Cause Notice was issued alleging irregular availment of credit on MS items as well as welding electrodes. The Ld. Counsel argued that when for the previous period the department did not object to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that an audit report dated 01.04.2009 was issued for the period 12/2006 to 10/2008 where in the department has noted that the appellant has availed credit on MS items as well as on welding electrodes. The Department has accepted this fact of credit availed by the appellant and no Show Cause Notice was issued for this period. Thereafter, an audit was conducted in the year, 2010 and the present Show Cause Notice has been issued raising the allegation that the credit availed on MS items as well as welding electrodes is not admissible. I do find merit in the contention put forward by appellant counsel, that when the department has accepted the eligibility of credit for the previous period the department ought not to have issued Show Cause No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al to hold that the amendment is retrospective in application. In the case of CC CE, Vizag, Vs. A.P.P. Mills [2013 (291) ELT 585 (Tri. Bang.)] the Tribunal had occasion to discuss the ratio laid by the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd., and observed that the said decision was rendered by the Tribunal much before the decision in the case of Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills Ltd., [2010 (255) ELT 481 (S.C)] and therefore is no longer good law. The Honorable Apex Court in the case of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Vs. CCE Meerut, observed that the word includes in the definition of inputs does not have a restrictive meaning. The Tribunal in the case of M/s. India Cements Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2016-TIOL-24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
