TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... / 54832/2014-Ex(SM) - Dated:- 22-12-2014 - Shri Ashok Jindal, J. For the Appellant : Shri R K Mishra, AR For the Respondent : Shri Ajay Jain, Advocate JUDGEMENT Per Ashok Jindal : Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that items namely MS pipes, MS Channels. MS Angles, girders, bars, structures, MS plates, shapes and sections which are falling under Chapter 72 of the first schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act are being used by the respondent in manufacturing of capital goods. Therefore, the respondents are entitled to take Cenvat credit of the same. 2. Brief facts of the case are that for manufacturing capital goods namely, cefixime, sterile, new solven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not discussed anything about the clarification of the material used in the manufacturing of capital goods. Therefore, impugned order lacks merits, hence, required to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that in this case, only allegation against the respondent is that they are not entitled to take Cenvat credit on the items procured by them as mentioned in para 1 hereinabove on the premise that these goods are neither inputs nor capital goods , therefore, they are not entitled to take Cenvat credit and same has been used by the respondent for erection of supporting structures. As respondent has explained that these items were used by them for manufacturing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing the ratio of the above said case laws and also that of M/s. Kisan Co-operative Sugar Factory -[2007 (212) ELT 541] referred to by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order, it is found that Cenvat credit on the impugned goods i.e. MS Pipes, MS channels, MS angles, girders, bars, structures, MS plates / shapes is admissible to the appellant as capital goods. Since there is no dispute regarding their actual use in the factory premises of the appellant in technical structures of machines / machinery by the appellant, there is no justification in denying credit of the same only on the ground that the impugned goods actually present in each of the individual machine/ machinery was not quantified by the appellant. It is further no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
