9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on MS Flats and MS Angles which were claimed to have been used for manufacturing material handling equipments such as moulding tracks and bucket elevators, which were used for manufacturing dutiable final products in the respondent's factory. In the relevant show-cause notice, it was alleged that the above items could not be treated as parts, components or accessories of any "capital goods" defined under Rule 2(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) and therefore any credit of the duty paid on such items was not admissible to the respondent. The show-cause notice relied on certain decisions including the Supreme Court's judgment in Vikram Cements case reported in 2005 (187) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.) wherein the definition of 'capital goods' g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luding Dalmia Cements Ltd. v. CCE [2006 (77) RLT 190 = 2007 (219) E.L.T. 220 (Tri.), wherein MS Plates, MS Angles, MS Channels and Aluminium Sheets used for manufacturing machinery were held to be capital goods. 2. In the present appeal filed by the Department, it is contended that MS Flats and MS Angles are general purpose items classifiable under Chapter 72 and not covered by the definition of capital goods. It is contended that such items are not identifiable as capital goods, nor eligible for CENVAT credit as inputs. The appellant has also claimed support from a line of decisions including the Apex Court's judgment in Vikram Cements case. 3. Ld. DR has reiterated the grounds of appeal and has urged that the order passed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y pleaded before the adjudicating authority that the flats and angles were used for repairs and maintenance of plant and machinery installed in their factory. These contradictory, contrary submissions were considered by the adjudicating authority which went to the extent of observing that there was no situation for availing CENVAT credit on the said items as capital goods because those items were apparently used as inputs for manufacture of capital goods. The adjudicating authority further opined that the assessee could at best claim CENVAT credit on the above items as inputs but never as capital goods. It appears, this part of the order of the original authority was not reviewed by the Department. Considering the alternative plea made by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
