9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/20172/2019-SM - Final Order No. 20276/2019 - Dated:- 19-3-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER V. B Gaikwad, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Gopa Kumar, Joint Commissioner, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eligible as capital goods. He further submitted that the appellants have proved the usage of these impugned goods for fabrication of various machinery before the Commissioner (A) by providing the certificate of the Chartered Engineer which was not considered by the Commissioner (A) on the ground that the said certificate was not produced before the original authority. Learned Counsel further submitted that both the authorities have not considered that the period involved in the present case is prior to 07.07.2009 when the amendment was made in Rule 2(k) of CCR, 2004. He further submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by various decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court by holding that prior to 07.07.2009, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Gemini Graphics Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, 2018 (10) TMI 1468. 5. On the other hand, learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and the various decisions relied upon by the appellants cited supra, I find that in the present case the period involved is prior to 07.07.2009 and the amendment carried out in Rule 2(k) vide CENVAT (Amendment) Rules, 2009 is applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. Further, I find that the Larger Bench decision in the case of Vandana Global Ltd . has been set aside by the Chattishgarh High Court which is reported 2018 (5) TMI 305. Further, I find that in the appellant s own case for the earlier period on an id ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the structural items have been suitably worked upon for this purpose. Accordingly, the goods fabricated, using such structurals, will have to be considered as parts of the relevant machines. The definition of Capital Goods includes, components, spares and accessories of such capital goods. Accordingly, 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. 7. In view of my discussion above by following the ratio of the above said decisions, I am of the considered view that the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
