Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 867 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - inputs/capital goods - staging structure falling under chapter heading No.73089090 - HELD THAT:- In the present case from the purchase order, it is apparent that a purchase order was placed as per the technical specifications. Keeping in view the scope of work required for the Energy Efficient Expansion of the Sugar Mill of the appellant. It stands clarified from the purchase order itself that existing sugar mill was proposed to be modified and for the said modification, the apparatus was purchased - Technological structures and staging are part of the machineries, in the sense that different equipment and plant like Pans, Crystallizers, Tank etc. are erected at a given height, and base which is provided by these technological structures and staging. The plant and machineries will be incomplete without these structures and staging. Keeping in view the same, the principal of user test as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR VERSUS M/S RAJASTHAN SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD. [2010 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered an identical issue of steel plates and MS channels used in the fabrication of chimney for diesel generating set. The credit stands allowed in the light of Rule 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. In addition, the Department’s own Circular No. 964/07-2012 dated 2nd April 2012 supports the appellant’s case and also the Circular No. 966/2009 dated 18 May, 2012 come to the rescue of the appellant which contained clarification regarding classification of structural components and admissibility of Cenvat credit Cenvat Credit there upon. It was clarified in the said Circular that Cenvat Credit is available in support of such structural components, which though are used for laying foundation or for making structural support, but if the machine cannot work without such support, these become the accessories / components thereof and as such, classified to be called as capital goods. In the present case, the impugned articles were required to suitably support and facilitate the smooth functioning of the machines of the sugar mill and as such, while applying the above principle of user test such structures have to be considered as the part of the relevant machines. Since the definition of capital goods includes components, spares & accessories of such capital goods, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned structural items would fall within the ambit of capital goods as contemplated under Rule 2 (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Hence, appellant is held entitled to avail the Cenvat Credit. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|