TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 432X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stantial benefit has already been given to the assessee and therefore the certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer certifying the usage of the impugned goods for fabrication of various components is established - the appellants are entitled for the CENVAT credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/21097/2017-SM - 22657/2017 - Dated:- 30-10-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member Shri Raghavendra B., Advocate For the Appellant Shri N. Jagadish, Superintendent (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 14/03/2017 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and uph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pecific. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused records. 4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed contrary to the allegation in the show-cause notice. He further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the binding judicial precedent on the same issue. He further submitted that the show-cause notice has proposed to deny the credit on the allegation that HR sheets, MS plates, channels, joists, beams etc. used in fabrication of support structure for bunkers, kiln and pollution control equipment which are embedded to earth so as to form immovable property and hence the same cannot be considered as capital goods as define ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and steel items used as components for capital goods or structural for support of capital goods is settled in favour of the appellant in the following decisions:- i. Suguna Metals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC,CE ST, Hyderabad-I [2016(339) ELT 119 (Tri. Hyd.)] ii. Metrochem Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara-I [2013(292) ELT 578 (Tri. Ahmd.)] iii. Monnet Ispat Energy Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur [2015(330) ELT 711 (Tri. Del.)] iv. India Cements Ltd. Vs. CESTAT [2015(321) ELT 209 (Mad.)] v. Commissioner Vs. India Cements Ltd. [2014(305) ELT 558 (Mad.)] 4.4. He further submitted that the impugned order rejecting the CENVAT credit on the ground that the appellant has failed to establish the usage of these materials. He furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the ground that the same is vague and unspecific. Further I also find that on the basis of the certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer, substantial CENVAT credit has been permitted by the Revenue which is reflected in the show-cause notice itself. Further I find that in the case of Suguna Metals Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal in similar circumstances has allowed the CENVAT credit on the basis of various decisions of the Tribunal. Further I find that the Chartered Engineer certificate produced on record has not been properly considered by both the authorities because on the basis of the certificate, substantial benefit has already been given to the assessee and therefore I am of the view that the certificate issued by the Charte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
