Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 766 - CESTAT HYDERABADCenvat credit of the duty paid on cement as capital goods - cement used for installation and erection or plant and machinery - Credit denied on the ground that credit is not admissible on cement, as it does not fall under the category of capital goods and that credit is not admissible as input because cement is not used directly or indirectly in the process of manufacture of final product. Held that:- the appellants used the cement for erecting and installing machinery(capital goods). It was used within the factory of production. The definition of capital goods does not require that capital goods should be used in the process of manufacturing. The only condition is that capital goods should be used in the factory of the manufacturer. It cannot be disputed that cement is necessary for laying foundation to fix machinery , and for support structures of capital goods. Following the decision laid by Larger Bench of Apex court in the case of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd [2016 (2) TMI 902 - SUPREME COURT] I am of the opinion that appellants are eligible for credit of excise duty paid on cement, under the category of inputs. - Decided in favor of assessee.
|