TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d against revenue. - Appeal No. E/1962/2008-EX [DB] - Final Order No. 52413/2016 - Dated:- 8-7-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Yogesh Agarwal, DR for the appellant None for the respondent ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan The present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the Order dated 9/5/2008, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Raipur. The dispute is with reference to the availability of CENVAT Credit on items such as Plates, M.S. Channels, Angles, Beams, Flats, etc which are either structural items used in sheds and other civil construction or used in the manufacture of capital goods falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff. The benefit w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidering them as components and parts of structures which form the capital goods. Citing the judgment of Bhushan Steel Strips Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raigad reported in 2008 (223) ELT 517 (Tri.-Mum), he has held hat even if the fabricated structures such as shed get fixed to the earth, they can still be considered as capital goods for the purposes of CENVAT Credit Rules. 4. We have heard Shri Yogesh Agarwal, DR for the appellant. 5. The entire dispute is with reference to the fact whether structural items such as M.S. Flats, Channels, Plates, Beams etc which are used to fabricate structures to house the coal washing plant are covered within the definition of input given in Rule 2 (k) of the Cenvat Credit Rule, 2004. We find that the issue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom 2004 up to March, 2006. The Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 were amended in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 37 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with effect from 7-7-2009, the date on which it was notified by the Central Government from the date of the notification. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, this amended definition would apply only to the factory or manufacturer and would not apply to the service provider. According to him, either before the amendment made in the year 2009 or thereafter, the appellant was neither factory nor manufacturer and he has only constructed jetty by use of cement and steel for which he was entitled for input credit as jetty was constructed by the contractor., but the jetty is situated w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
