Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (7) TMI 1199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ll qualify under Chapter 84 along with the boiler. All the items in question are components and accessories of capital goods which shall qualify as capital goods. Even otherwise if any item otherwise qualifies as an input under Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, the same is also available for Cenvat credit. Admittedly all the goods in question have been used by the manufacturer-appellant in their factory of production - the court below have erred in observing that these materials/goods/components/structures have been used in repair & maintenance of old plant and machinery - there is a mistake of fact in the orders of the court below. The appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit of ₹ 41,18,310/- under dispute - appeal allowed - dec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ersed whole of the said Cenvat credit vide Entry No.192 dated 23/11/2008. However the appellant vide their letter dated 25/12/2008 requested the Range Superintendent to allow the re-credit of those aforementioned amounts stating that it was admissible to them. Appellant also reiterated the prayer before the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise vide their letter dated 20/04/2009. The Assistant Commissioner replied vide letter dated 11/05/2009 that there is no provision in Central Excise Rules to allow the credit of the amount reversed at the time of audit. Thereafter the appellant intimated vide their letter dated 21/05/2009 received in the Range Office on 08/06/2009 that they have taken the re-credit of the said amount and the same is r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - assessee is before this Tribunal. Earlier this appeal was decided vide Final Order No.70584/2017 dated 16/06/2017 allowing the Cenvat credit in view of C.B.E.C. Circular No.964/07/2012-CX dated 02/04/2012 wherein it has been clarified that the structural components which are used essentially as a part of boiler system could be classified as part of boiler only, under Heading 8402 of the Tariff whereas Cenvat credit availed was wrongly denied. Further other inputs in question have been used for manufacture of capital goods like storage tank, etc., on which credit is admissible. Being aggrieved Revenue preferred appeal before Hon ble Allahabad High Court being Central Excise Appeal No.1/2018 wherein the Hon'ble High Court have set aside .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing of structures for support of capital goods, but are essentially the part of the said boilers. 7. Subsequently the Board received references from the field formation, seeking clarification of this Circular dated 2 nd April, 2012 wherein doubt was raised regards admissibility of structural components used for the support of the capital goods. The Board referring to paragraph 3 of its Circular dated 02/04/2012 once again reiterated that in terms of Rule 2(k) of CCR, while Cenvat credit is available in respect of parts of boiler, the same is not admissible in respect of the structural components used for laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods/boiler. 8. Upon consideration of the rival submissions an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ll goods used in the factory by the manufacturer of the final product. Admittedly all the goods in question have been used by the manufacturer - appellant in their factory of production. Further, I find that the court below have erred in observing that these materials/goods/components/structures have been used in repair maintenance of old plant and machinery. Thus, I find that there is a mistake of fact in the orders of the court below. 9. Further, I find that Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of India Cement Ltd. vs. CESTAT Chennai 2015 (321) E.L.T. 209 by its judgment dated 06/03/2015 have held that MS Rod, sheet, MS channels, MS plate, flat etc., used for erection of capital goods or for fabrication of structural to support .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates