Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2014 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 297 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTCENVAT Credit - Whether, Cenvat Credit is admissible on HR Plates, Sections, Sheets, etc. (falling under Chapter No. 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985) as Capital Goods - fabrication of storage tank for sugar cane juice clarifier. - components spares and accessories - Held that:- Notification of the Legislature is very clear that it is only "inputs" used in the manufacture or construction of capital goods which is construed as input and cenvat credit is available on the duty paid in purchase of such inputs. If the cement, angles, channels, Centrally Twister Deform bar (C.T.D.) or Thermo Mechanically Treated bar (T.M.T.) and other items are used in the construction of factory shed, building or lying of foundation, the duty paid on such items the assessee would not be entailed to cenvat credit. Similarly, though the assessee is entitled to cenvat credit of cement and steel used in the manufacture of capital goods viz. storage tank, if any structure for support of capital goods is constructed and steel and cement is used for such support, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of cenvat credit on the duty paid on such cement and steel. Therefore, there is no ambiguity in any of these provisions. When once a storage tank and pollution control equipment constitutes capital goods and any raw material purchased for construction of those goods, the duty paid could be utilized as a cenvat credit by the assessee notwithstanding the fact that the storage tank is an immovable property. Therefore, the appellate authority committed a serious error firstly in holding that the storage tank is an immovable property and secondly on the ground that it cannot be bought and sold in the market, the criteria which is totally unwarranted under the circumstances. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the said order and holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit. no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the same is hereby sustained along-with the reasons mentioned herein - Following decision of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II Vs. SLR Steels Ltd. [2012 (9) TMI 169 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Decided against Revenue.
|