Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2021 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 75 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - inputs or not - items used for fabrication items of supporting structures of the capital goods - supporting structures, fabricated and embodied to the earth - constitute as “Goods” under the statute or not - Rule 2 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - HELD THAT:- The Respondent Company had obtained a Central Excise Registration under Section 6 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CE Act) for the purposes of manufacturing of sponge iron and its derivative products. For manufacturing, the Respondent constructed/installed 4 100TPD Sponge Iron Plant and availed CENVAT Credit on input on various items during the relevant period i.e. from May to August, 2004. A part of the inputs included construction materials. The Court finds that in the present case the categorical finding on fact concurrently both by the Commissioner and the CESTAT is that the iron steel and items were in fact used in the fabrication of identifiable capital goods which were in turn used for manufacture of excisable goods. Further, the circular dated 2nd December, 1996 issued by the CBEC fully supports the case of the Respondent. Reference could also be made to the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. M/s. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. [2010 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] where the Supreme court allowed MODVAT credit on steel plates and M.S. channels used in the fabrication of chimney for the diesel generating set. The CESTAT was justified in dismissing the Department’s appeal since the credit was claimed in respect of the inputs used for fabrication items supporting structures of capital goods - the CESTAT was right in law by allowing CENVAT Credit on the goods used for fabrication of supporting structure for capital goods - Tribunal was right in law in holding that the fabrication goods used for supporting structures were capital goods for which CENVAT Credit was allowable. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|