9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. vs Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Raipur [2016 (9) TMI 682 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that applying the User Test to the facts in hand, we have no hesitation in holding that the structural items used in the fabrication of support structures would fall within the ambit of Capital Goods as contemplated under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, hence will be entitled to the Cenvat credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal Nos. E/84 -88/2011 & E/154/2012 - Order No. FO/78432-78437/2017 - Dated:- 30-11-2017 - Shri Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Ravi Raghavan, Advocate, Shri Harsh Shukla, CA, Shri S.Saraogi, CA for the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (341) ELT 372 (Tri.-Del), wherein it was held that : 12. We have gone through the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Allahabad cited by the Revenue. We find that the Hon ble High Court has considered the claim of Welding Electrodes under the definition of Capital Goods under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and have come to the conclusion that the credit will not be allowable under this Rule. However, we find that the credit of duty paid on Welding Electrodes has been held allowable by several decisions of this Tribunal and hence the issue is no more res integra. We also find that several High Courts have also allowed such credit considering the same as allowable within the definition of Input under the Cenvat Credit Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in Vandana Global Ltd. s case (supra) laid down that even if the iron and articles were used as supporting structures, they would not be eligible for the credit. Considering the amendment made w.e.f. 7-7-2009 as a clarification amendment and hence to be considered retrospectively. However, we find that the said decision of the Larger Bench was considered by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd., 2015 (04) LCX0197 = 2015 (39) S.T.R. 726 (Guj.), wherein it was observed that the amendment made on 7-7-2009 cannot be held to be clarificatory and as such would be applicable only prospectively. 15. We find that the controversy can be laid to rest by making a reference to the decision of the Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
