9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T), etc. were excluded from definition of Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that: - the Order-in-Appeal dated 31/03/2015 was decided relying on the decision of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Limited [2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)], where it was held that the clarificatory amendment made to Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k) in 2009 has to be held to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It appeared to Revenue that according to the Budget 2009-10 exclusion of Cement, Angles, Channels, Centrally Twisted Deformed Bass (CTD) or Thermo Mechanically Treated Bar (TMT), etc. were excluded from definition of Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It was observed by Revenue that the appellant had availed Cenvat credit of ₹ 1,32,861/- on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, Raipur reported at 2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri. - LB) Cenvat credit of the said amount was not admissible to the appellant. Therefore, demand was confirmed and equal penalty was imposed. Aggrieved by the said order appellant preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the appeal through impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 31/03/2015. The Appellate Aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made in Explanation 2 was clarificatory in nature and therefore he has argued that after the said ruling it is not appropriate to rely on the ruling of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Limited (supra) and therefore appeal may be allowed. 4. Heard the ld. A. R. for Revenue, who has supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 31/03/2015. 5. Having considered th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
