9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004 was not allowed for non-conformity with that and that their alternative plea for consideration of eligibility as inputs in terms of rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was not to be entertained by recourse to procedural lacuna indicated in the order. On the other hand, the first appellate authority had rejected the appeal solely by relying upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal on the ground that the said decision covered the issue in dispute. On a perusal of rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, we find that the definition therein is intended for such goods as are entitled to availment of credit in terms of rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; steel plates do not come within that definition and, consequently, are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand of ₹ 48,49,642/- sought to be recovered, under rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, on steel plates of various grades utilized by the appellant for repair, maintenance and replacement of acid tank , annealing furnace and buckets in the factory of manufacture, along with interest leviable thereon, and imposition of penalty of like amount under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The appellant is a manufacturer of cold-rolled (CR) sheets/coils , galvanized sheets/coils and colour-coated sheets and the dispute relates to the credit availed on steel plates referred to supra between 1st January 2006 and 31st August 2010. The process of manufacture of finished goods includes acid pickling , annealing and galvanization all of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacture and consequently ineligible for credit, to draw attention to the decisions of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in ACC Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune II [2018 (361) ELT 343 (Bom.)], of the Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan in Hindustan Zinc Ltd v. Union of India [2008 (228) ELT 517 (Raj.)] and of the Hon ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [2010 (256) ELT 690 (Chhattisgarh)] holding that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal had not considered the ratio of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in J K Cotton Spinning Weaving Mills Co Ltd v. Sales tax Officer, Kanpur [1997 (91) ELT 34 (SC)] and, hence, unacceptable as precedent. 6. Learned Authorised Represen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own decision in Malvika Steel Limited s case [1998 (97) E.L.T. 530 (Tribunal)] and without semblance of any discussion, has partly allowed the assessee s appeal. In view of our findings and the conclusion in the earlier part of the judgment, we cannot agree with the reasoning of the Tribunal. to contend that sections and shapes are not capital goods . He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh Sree Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs Central Excise, Tirupati [2012 (278) ELT 167 (AP)] setting out that repairs and maintenance are different from manufacture and hence claim for coverage under rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 would not apply. 7. On examination of the records, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingredients or commodities used in the process, nor must they be directly and actually needed for turning out or the creation of goods was not considered. The Rajasthan High Court therefore, proceeded to hold that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal is no longer a good law. The same issue arose for consideration of Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Ambuja Cement (supra). Ultimately it was held that the decision in the case of Jaypee Rewa Plant (supra) is not a good law. 12. Now, coming back to the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal has proceeded on the footing that the decision of its Larger Bench in the case of Jaypee Rewa Plant (supra). After having perused the decision of the Apex Court in the case J.K. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e context of notification no. 67/95-CE dated 16th March 1995 granting exemption to capital goods that fell within the enumeration in rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Hon ble Supreme Court held that such steel structures are not components which conformed to the definition of rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and, consequently, liable to duty in view of non-eligibility for the cited exemption. 10. The Hon ble Supreme Court was considering duty liability and reference to rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944, which could be considered as predecessor provision of rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 as far as capital goods are concerned, was only in the context of the reference to that rule for the purpose of exemption from dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
