TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e structures were purchased as part of the plant are entitled for CENVAT credit. In this case CENVAT credit to tune of ₹ 8,31,627/- were taken by the respondent for cane carrier, cane unloader, gantry girder assembly, centrifugal machinery, boiler, sugar mill, juice tank, sugar storage bins. These items cannot be terms as supporting structures, therefore, credit cannot be denied. Further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... To set up their sugar plant, they entered in an agreement with the supplier of the plant to supply the plant and machinery and some structures to support their plant and machinery. The agreement was entered into and as per the agreement, the required plant and machinery and supporting structure was supplied. The respondent took credit of all the material supplied by the supplier. Revenue is of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ltd. (supra) which has been considered by the Apex Court in Saraswati Sugar Mills 2011 (270) ELT 465 (SC) and the Apex Court came at a decision that for supporting structures CENVAT credit is not admissible. Therefore, he prays that impugned order be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that it is not a case of the revenue that supporti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s used in the fabricating supporting structures for installation of equipments are entitled to CENVAT credit or not. Admittedly, as these items were purchased by the assessee to erect the supporting structure at the factory of the assessee which were embedded to earth. Therefore, they became immovable property and CENVAT credit was denied. But same is not the case in hand. In this case, these supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... machinery and equipment to the tune of Rs. 6,21,000/-. No where it is coming from the facts that these structure are supporting structure for erection of plant and machinery at the site of the respondent. 9. Therefore, following the decision in the case of M/s. India Cement Ltd. (supra), I hold that the respondents are entitled to take the credit as per impugned order. 10. In these terms, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
