TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvat credit by the assessee notwithstanding the fact that the storage tank is an immovable property. Tribunal for the earlier period has already decided in favor of the assessee by holding that the assessee is entitled to the CENVAT credit on these items which are used for fabrication of hot blast stove. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/21241/2017-SM - 22423/2017 - Dated:- 11-10-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member Mr. M.S. Nagaraja, Adv For the Appellant Mr. Parasivamurthy, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 19.5.2017/24.5.2017 passed by the Commissioner (A), whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-Original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) on the ground that the MS angles, channels, joists, beams were used for fabrication of hot blast stove used within the factory. After considering the submissions of both the parties, the Commissioner (A) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and hence, the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed beyond the show-cause notice and also contrary to the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that in the show-cause notice, the Department has admitted that these items MS angles, plates, channels, joists, beams were us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... movable property. In support of his submission that the plants and machineries fixed to earth are goods and not immovable property. He relied upon the following decisions: Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad: 1998 (97) ELT 3 (SC) CCE, Ahmedabad Vs. Solid Correct Engineering Works: 2010 (252) ELT 481 Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2005 (190) ELT 301 (Tri.-LB) 5.1 He further submitted that the inputs used for fabrication of capital goods eligible for CENVAT credit even if the resultant goods are fixed to earth and for this submission, he relied upon the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE Vs. SLR Steels Ltd.: 2012 (280) ELT 176 (Kar.) and Mahalakshmi Glass Works Ltd. Vs. CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om its base and dismantled, before being sold. 9. The claim of the appellant which has been explained in the above paragraph is that these manufacturing facilities find place specifically in the Central Excise Tariff. Both blast furnace and coke oven batteries are, without doubt, huge structures whose size is required to cater to the size of operation in a steel plant. The sheer size also indicates that these manufacturing facilities cannot be suspended in mid-air and will need to be adequately supported by means of civil foundation and other civil structures. Consequently, we have to conclude that both these facilities get supported and embedded to the ground for the purposes of safety and smooth operational efficiency. When, we refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the following decisions: CCE Vs. Gas Authority of India Ltd.: 2008 (232) ELT 7 (SC) Hindustan Polymers Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Guntur: 1999 (106) ELT 12(SC) CC, Mumbai Vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd.: 2006 (201) ELT 513 (SC) 5.3 He also submitted that the facts which are admitted in the show-cause notice need not be proved by the appellant and for this, he relied upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of C CE, Madras Vs. Systems Components Pvt. Ltd.: 2004 (165) ELT 136 (SC). 5.4 He also submitted that in the appellant's own case for an earlier period, the Commissioner (A) vide Order-in-Appeal No.566/2012 dated 18.10.2012 allowed the appeal of the assessee and against the said order, the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
