TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 47
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Duty demanded Penalty E/26252/2013 No.12/2013 dt.1.2.2013 April 2010 to August 2010 Rs.85,774/- Rs.5,000/- E/26527/2013 No.18/2013 dt.5.2.2013 Sep. 07 & Apr. 08 Rs.53,518/- Rs.2,000/- E/26870/2013 No.18/2013 dt.5.2.2013 Nov. 07 to Sep. 08 Rs.1,57,088/- Rs.2,000/- 2. For the sake of convenience, I shall take up the facts from the appeal No. E/26252/2013. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of sugar, molasses, denatured spirit & denatured Ethyl Alcohol, etc., falling under Chapter 17 & 22 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period from April 2010 to August 2010, the appellant had availed first 50% credit of Rs. 1,67,774/- on various items like HS mill plat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s wrong and illegal and is contrary to the provisions of the statute defining the capital goods as well as inputs and also contrary to the binding judicial precedents on the issue. He further submitted that the issue involved in the present appeals is squarely covered by various decisions of the Tribunal and in support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions: (i) CCE, Coimbatore vs. Jawahar Mills Ltd.: 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) (ii) CCE vs. Kothari Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.: 2002 (247) ELT 849 (Tri.-Chennai) (iii) CCE, Visakhapatnam-II vs. A.P.P. Mills Ltd.: 2013 (291) ELT 585 (Tri.-Bang.) (iv) CCE & ST, Guntur vs. Andhra Sugars Ltd.: 2014 (305) ELT 150 (Tri.-Bang.) (v) CCE, Bangalore vs. Alfred Herbert (India) L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble even if components manufactured and erected have become integral part of immovable structure. 7. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned orders and relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills vs. CCE reported in 2011 (270) ELT 465 (SC). 8. The present dispute revolves around the question whether the CENVAT credit is allowable on various structural items such as MS Plates, MS Channel, MS Angle, HR Steel Plates, Chequered Plates, Aluminium Coil, Joists, etc., which were used for making structure for supporting capital goods. In order to decide this issue, it is pertinent to examine the definition of the term input in the CENVAT Credit Rules as well as Capital Goods in Rule 2(a) which is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage up to the place of removal, procurement of inputs, activities relating to business, such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share registry, and security, inward transportation of inputs or capital goods and outward transportation up to the place of removal." RULE 2. Definitions. In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, - (a) capital goods means :- (A) the following goods, namely :- (i) all goods falling under Chapter 82, Chapter 84, Chapter 85, Chapter 90, [heading 6805, grinding wheels and the like, and parts thereof falling under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....558-HC-MAD-CX and CCE, Tiruchirapalli vs. India Cements Ltd.: 2014 (305) ELT 558 (Mad.) = 2012-TIOL-1118-HC-MAD-CX, the stand taken by the Revenue is not acceptable for the facts present for the case in hand. 8.6 Further, considering the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jawahat Mills and Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (supra) and after applying the user test we are of the considered view that the subject items namely, angles, channels, beams, etc., would be eligible for the CENVAT credit." 8.2 Further, in the case of CC vs. APP Mils Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2013 (29) ELT 585 (Tri.-Bang.) wherein in para 4.2 this Tribunal has held as under: "4.2 The view of the Tribunal s Larger Bench in the case of Vandana....