2022 (6) TMI 4 - CESTAT MUMBAI

CENVAT Credit - capital goods - cement and iron & steel items used for construction of storage tank - Explanation 2 of Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 with effect from 7.7.2009, retrospective or prospective - Capital goods becoming immovable property or not - HELD THAT:- The issue involved in this matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in appellant own case AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD (UNIT: DADRI) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI [2022 (1) TMI 1067 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that As the facts of the case are not in dispute that the steel items in question has been used for fabrication of the capital goods which has ultimately been used for manufacture of their final product, in that circumstances, we hold that the appellant are entitled to CENVAT credit on the items in question.

In appellant’s own case THE COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW VERSUS M/S. AMBUJA CEMENT LTD., SAHARANPUR [2017 (4) TMI 1280 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] it was held that The mere fact that machine, machinery, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances, etc., are generally understood to be movable property, would not mean that plant also has to be necessarily treated as movable property only. There does not appear to be any rational to import the concept of movable or immovable goods while interpreting Section 2(f) of the Act, when the provision does not say so.

Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.