TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 833X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essories inside the manufacturer premises are eligible for credit by applying user test as evolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [2010 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. A reference can be made to latest decision of the Tribunal in Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC&CE, Raipur [2016 (9) TMI 682 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where applying the “User Test”, it was held that the structural items used in the fabrication of support structures would fall within the ambit of ‘Capital Goods’ as contemplated under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, hence will be entitled to the Cenvat Credit. Appeal allowed - credit allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee. - Excise Appeal Nos. 2055 of 2011 - A/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l. 4. With this background of the case and material available on record, we find that identical issue came up before the Tribunal in the same set of facts in the case of Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur vide order dated 27.09.2016 where it was observed that: 6. We find that apart from the various other case laws relied upon by the appellant as above, the decisions of Hon ble Madras High Court in India Cements Limited 2012 (285) ELT 341 (Mad.), 2014 (310) ELT 636 (Mad.) and 2014 (305) ELT 558 (Mad.) all on the same set of facts, though with reference to erstwhile Rule 57Q are also relevant. The Hon ble Supreme Court in Jayaswal Neco Limited 2015 (319) ELT 247 (SC) allowed cenvat credit on railway track materials used for handlin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC CE, Raipur vide final order No. 53013/2016 dated 12.08.2016. The findings of the Tribunal are as under: 13. Now we turn to the question, whether credit is admissible on various structural steel items, such as, MS Angles, Sections, Channels, TMT Bar etc., which have been used by the appellants in the fabrication of support structures on which various capital goods are placed? The same stands denied by the lower authority. The learned DR has sought disallowance of the same by citing the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra) and other judgments. Further, he has brought to our notice and emphasised the amendment carried out in Explanation-II to Rule 2(a) wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. -2001 (132) ELT 3 (SC), which is required to be satisfied to find out whether or not particular goods could be said to be capital goods. When we apply the user test to the case in hand, we find that the structural steel items have been used for the fabrication of support structures for capital goods. The appellants have argued that the various capital goods, such as, kiln, material handling conveyor system, furnace etc. cannot be suspended in mid air. They will need to be suitably supported to facilitate smooth functioning of such machines. It is obvious that the structural items have been suitably worked upon for this purpose. Accordingly, the goods fabricated, using such structurals, will have to be considered as parts of the relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
