TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jawahar Mills case (2001 (7) TMI 118 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) the angles, beams and channels used in the making and fabrication of these capital goods are found eligible for Cenvat credit. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. E/567/2010-EX. (SM) - Final Order No. 53961/2016 - Dated:- 29-9-2016 - Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocate - for the appellant Shri S.C. Saini, A.R. - for the respondent ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan The appeal is directed against the order in appeal dated 4.2.2010. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of TMT bars falling under Chapter 72 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (iii) Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE 2006 (195) ELT 164 (Tri.-Mumbai). (iv) Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. Vs. CCE 2013 (294) ELT 581 (Tri.-Del.) (v) CCE Vs. India Cements Ltd. 2014 (305) ELT 558 (Mad.). (vi) Mundra Ports Special Economic Zone Ltd. Vs. CCE 2015 (39) STR 726 (Guj.). 4. The ld. DR, on the other hand, reiterated the findings of the authorities below. 5. The learned DR on the other hand relied on the decision of Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Daya Sugar vs. CCE, Meerut I reported in 2015 (316) E.L.T. 394 (All.). 6. The issue of Cenvat credit on structural items used in the fabrication of support structures for capital goods has been decided in favour of the appellants in many recent decisions in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... became part of structures which are embedded to earth and become immovable, thereby losing the name of goods . Hence, Revenue contends that these items used are outside the purview of capital goods or inputs. We find that the Hon ble Supreme Court evolved user test to answer the question whether the items falls within the purview of capital goods and held that in the case of Rajasthan Spinning Mills (supra) that steel plates and MS channels used in the fabrication of chimney would fall within the ambit of capital goods . The Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SLR Steels Ltd. [2012 (280) E.L.T. 176 (Kar.)] held as under : 7. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it very clear though storage tanks may be immovable property ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el 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. 8. The Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CCE v. India Cements Ltd. [2014 (310) E.L.T. 636 (Mad.)] held that MS pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are only supports will not be sufficient to deny the credit. Similarly, the allegation that silo is merely an item which was for receiving finished product and is not used for processing the goods is misleading and contrary to facts. Silo is a storage facility of the finished goods and it is a fact that silo is a storage tank included as a capital goods in the overall scheme of manufacture of final product. 10. The items in dispute are either specifically find place in Central Excise Tariff as machinery, equipment (kiln, conveyor system raw material processing plant) or specifically included in the definition for capital goods like pollution control equipments, components spare and accessories, storage tanks. Applying the principle of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
