2017 (7) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e. storage tank, should merit consideration as input for the purpose of availment of cenvat credit, on the duties paid thereon - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Present for the Appellant : Mr. Vipul Agarwal, Advocate Present for the Respondent : Mr. M.R. Sharma, A.R. ORDER PER: S.K. MOHANTY Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cement and clinker the final products, falling under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant avails cenvat credit in respect of duties paid on inputs and capital goods, used in or in relation to manufacture of the said final products. During the period June, 2009, the appellant had availed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the Revenue, besides reiterating the findings recorded in the impugned order, further submits that since the storage tank, after its construction is attached to the earth, the same does not seem to be goods, for the purpose of availment of cenvat credit on the material used therein. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5. I find that the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SLR Steels Ltd. (Supra) have held that storage tank is specified as capital goods in the definition provided in Rule 2 (a) (A) (vii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and thus, steel and cement, used in the manufacture of the eligible capital goods i.e. storage tank, should merit consideration as input for the purpose of availment of cenvat credit, on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot find that amendment made in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 which come into force on 7-7-2009 was clarificatory amendment as there is nothing to suggest in the Amending Act that amendment made in Explanation 2 was clarificatory in nature. Wherever the Legislature wants to clarify the provision, it clearly mentions intention in the notification itself and seeks to clarify existing provision. Even, if the new provision is added then it will be new amendment and cannot be treated to be clarification of particular thing or goods and/or input and as such, the amendment could operate only prospectively. In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal is based on conjectures and surmises as the Larger Bench of the Tribunal used the expression that int .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X