9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)] . In this regard, we find that much water was flown on this issue and not only the VANDANA GLOBAL LTD. larger bench judgment was upset by the Hon ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of M/S VANDANA GLOBAL LIMITED AND OTHERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2018 (5) TMI 305 - CHHATTISGARH, HIGH COURT] but also by various subsequent judgment mainly by jurisdictional high court in the case of MUNDRA PORTS AND SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CUSTOMS [ 2015 (5) TMI 663 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] . In view of the legal position, the amendment of notification no.16/2009-CE (N.T.) was held to be inapplicable for the period prior to the dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Tara Prakash, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellant is entitled for cenvat credit in respect of Cement, TMT bars, MS angles, channels, beams, racks, plates, etc. used for making foundation of machineries installed in the factory premises and for making structure for support of the plant and machinery qualified as capital goods as defined in Rule 2(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for the period April 2008 to April, 2010. 02. Shri T.V. Venkateswaran along with Ms. Nikita Jain, learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellant submits that the adjudicating authority has denied the credit on the goods in question mainly on the ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE V. GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENT LTD. [2008 (230) E.L.T. 221 (H.P.)] SARJOO SAHKARI CHINI MILLS LTD. V. COMMISISONER OF C. EX., LUCKNOW [2009 (248) E.L.T 559 (TRI. - DEL.)] COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIPUR V. BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. [2009 (246) E.L.T 388 (TRI. - DEL.)] UNION OF INDIA V. HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. [2007 (214) E.L.T. 510 (RAJ.)] BANCO PRODUCTS (INDIA) LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA-1 [2009 (235) E.L.T. 636 (TRI. - LB)] ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI [2006 (195) E.L.T. 164 (TRI. - MUMBAI)] DIVI'S LABORATORIES LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VISAKHAPATNAM 2006 (196) E.L.T. 285 (TRI. - BANG.)] COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUCHIRAPALLI V. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd also for making structures for support of the plant. The credit was denied mainly on the ground that the amendment in Rule 2(a) brought by notification no. 16/2009-CE (N.T.) barred the availment of cenvat credit on the goods in question from retrospective effect. This finding of the adjudicating authority is based on the larger bench judgment of the tribunal in the case of VANDANA GLOBAL LTD. In this regard, we find that much water was flown on this issue and not only the VANDANA GLOBAL LTD. larger bench judgment was upset by the Hon ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of VANDANA GLOBAL LTD.- 2018 (16) GSTL 462 (Chhattisgarh) but also by various subsequent judgment mainly by jurisdictional high court in the case of MUNDRA PORTS SPE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of notification no.16/2009-CE (N.T.) was held to be inapplicable for the period prior to the date of notification i.e. 07.07.2009. On this ground, the denial of cenvat credit by the adjudicating authority is not legal and correct. 4.1 As regard the period post 07.07.2009, it is the submission of the appellant that the credit subsequent to this date was already taken prior to 07.07.2009. In this fact, we are of the opinion that the credit was already accrued before the amendment of Rule 2(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 therefore, the amendment of notification no. 16/2009-CE (N.T.) shall not apply on such credit which was accrued prior to 07.07.2009. Moreover, the appellant have claimed the credit under capital goods. Such capital goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
