9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) under Rule 15(1) and equal penalty under Rule 15(2) read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper boards falling under Chapter 48 of the Central Excise Tariff Act and are availing and utilizing cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input services as per the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules. During the course of audit for the period October 2007 to February 2008 an objection was raised that the appellant had wrongly availed credit of Rs. 81,68,897/- (Rupees Eighty One Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Seven only) on various items like M.S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The Commissioner in the impugned order has stated that these items fall under Tariff Heading 7213 and 7214 and are neither falling under Chapter 82, 84, 85, 90, 6805, 6804 nor are they pollution control equipment and they cannot be said to be spares, accessories and components of the specified goods under Rule 2(a). The learned counsel submitted that without the foundation the machine cannot be installed and therefore the foundation is an integral part of the machinery, without which the machines cannot function. In support of this submission, she relied upon the following decisions: a) Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem Vs. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. - 2014 (310) E.L.T. 870 (Mad.) b) India Cements Ltd. vs. CESTAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the parties, I find that the impugned order denying the cenvat credit on the impugned goods which were used for laying of the foundation on which the machineries were installed is not sustainable in law in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of India Cement as well as other decisions cited supra. Further I find that in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner reported in 2006 (195) E.L.T. 164 (Tri,-Mum.), the Hon'ble Tribunal has considered almost all the earlier decisions on the subject and concluded that as long as steel and cement are clearly linked with the machinery i.e. the specified capital goods and are used for production of the final product, the same would qualify as 'cap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
