2018 (1) TMI 633 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – CENVAT credit – MS Angles, Channels etc. – The department was of the view that the appellants are not eligible for credit taken on cement and steel as they do not fall under the definition of inputs or capital goods – Held that: – The decision in the case of Rajasthan Spinning and weaving mills [2010 (7) TMI 12 – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], had held that the credit is eligible – the imposition of penalty is unwarranted and unjustified and is set aside.
–
Appeals for remanded reconsideration by following various case laws on the said issue whether credit is admissible on cement and steel used for construction of building/foundation/shed etc. – appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. – E/MISC/41941, 41944/2017 & E/710,711/2010 – Final Order Nos.40077-40078/2018 – Dated:- 8-1-2018 – Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri R. Parthasarathy, Consultant for the appellant Shri A. Cletus,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
the appellants, Ld. Consultant, Shri R. Parthasarathy submitted that in the appellant s own case for earlier period, the appeals on similar issue were remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass appropriate order after considering the application of various case laws. That the present case may also be remanded to decide afresh in the light of the judgments rendered on the said issue. 3. The Ld. AR, Shri A. Cletus, ADC, reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5.1 The Ld. Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decision passed by the Tribunal in the appellant s own case vide Final Order No.40948 40953/2016 dated 13.06.2016, wherein the Tribunal has remanded these appeals for reconsideration by following various case laws on the said issue whether credit is admissible on cement and steel used for construction of building/foundation/shed etc. The period involved is prior to 07.07.2009 when the restriction with regard to use of cement and steel as inpu
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
CCE, Trichy – 2015-TIOL-1734-HC-MAD-CX x) CCE, Trichy Vs. CESTAT, Chennai – 2014 (309) ELT 71 (Mad.) 5.2 Ld. Consultant has also requested to waive the penalty. He submitted that the issue whether the assesse is eligible to avail credit on cement and steel was contentious during the relevant period. There were decisions in favour of the appellants as well as revenue. Further, the definition of inputs underwent a change w.e.f. 07.07.2009. Though the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal held that credit is not admissible on steel items like MS Angles, Channels etc., used for construction of plant/support of capital structures, the said view as held to be per Incuriam by various decisions of the Tribunal. The decision in the case of Rajasthan Spinning and weaving mills – 2010 (255) ELT 481 (SC), had held that the credit is eligible. This was followed by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. (supra). Taking these aspects into consideration, we are of the view tha
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =