9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 to Rule 2 (k) of the Rules of 2004 - dismissal of appeal without considering the submissions made by the appellant - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- On account of divergent views of various Benches of the Tribunal, the issue as to whether the Cement and Steel Bars used in the Structural foundation to support the plant and machinery embedded qualified either as Capital Good or Input was referred to a Larger Bench by the Tribunal. The Larger Bench in the case of M/s. Manglam Cement Limited Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I [ 2018 (3) TMI 1547 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ], after considering the decisions of the Supreme Court and amendment of the explanation, allowed the claim of the assessee after recording a factual finding that the use of cement and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be capital goods or input. 4. The case set up is that the assessee is entitled to CENVAT Credit being covered under the definition of Input under Rule 2 (k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (for short the Rules of 2004 ). The specific reliance is upon unamended Explanation 2 to Rule 2 (k) of the Rules of 2004. 5. There are contradictory views of the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal ) on the issue resultantly, the department and the assessee both are in appeal before this Court. 6. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to note that that Explanation 2 to Rule 2 (k) of the Rules of 2004 was amended vide Notification dated 07.07.2009 and following part was added:- but shall not include cement, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... support the plant and machinery embedded qualified either as Capital Good or Input was referred to a Larger Bench by the Tribunal. The Larger Bench in the case of M/s. Manglam Cement Limited Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I vide order dated 05.03.2018 , after considering the decisions of the Supreme Court and amendment of the explanation, allowed the claim of the assessee after recording a factual finding that the use of cement and steel was for laying foundation for erection of Capital Goods . 9. Nothing has been put before this Court to show that the Department has successfully challenged the decision of the Larger Bench. 10. In view of the decision of the Larger Bench, it would be appropriate that orders of the Tribunal are set aside. The matter is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
