TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve case the Hon’ble High Court held that exclusion brought in by the amendment cannot be given retrospective effect. The eligibility of steel items for cenvat credit has been a subject matter of decision by the Tribunal, Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases. It has been held by the Tribunal consistently that the steel items when they were used in fabrication of capital goods and their accessories inside the manufacturing premises are eligible for credit. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - EXCISE APPEAL NO. E/446/2009 - FO/76655/2018 - Dated:- 5-7-2018 - Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Shri Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri S. Mohapatra, GM(Taxation) for the applicants. Shri D. Haldar, AC(AR) for the Respondent. ORDER Per Shri P.K. Choudhary The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Iron and Steel products of different grades such as Pig Iron, Sponge Iron, M.S.Billets/Ingots, Ferro Alloys and rolled products in the form of rods and bars classifiable under Chapter 72 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... puts were used in the manufacture of capital goods such as Pollution Control System, Water Cooling System, Mill Bed Accessories conveyor System, material handling system, Storage Tank, Furnace Furnace Accessories, Crane Operating System, Transformer Electrical Installation, Concast Machine and Accessories etc. 3. Ld. DR reiterates the discussions and findings of the adjudicating authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. We find that the appellant have submitted certificate of Chartered Engineer to substantiate their claim that such steel items have been used to fabricate and install capital goods only. It was submitted that the impugned order failed to appreciate the facts as narrated in the certificate. 6. We find that the amendment of the definition of Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 made w.e.f. 07.07.2009 is not applicable to the facts and the present case since all the goods have been purchased and used before the amendment. The exclusion made is to the effect that the inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods eligible for credit shall not include cement, angles, channels, CTD bar, TMT bars and other items used for construc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in favour of the Revenue, we do not find any good ground to take a different view herein too. 10. As far as the reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision reported in 2011 (270) E.L.T.465 (SC) = 2011- TIOL-73-SC-CX (Saraswati Sugar Mills V. Commissioner of C.Ex., Delhi-III) is concerned, we do not think that the said decision would be of any assistance to the Revenue, considering the factual finding by the Tribunal therein in the decided case that the machineries purchased by the assessee were machineries themselves. Thus, after referring to the decision reported in 2010 (255) E.L.T.481 = 2010-TIOL-51-SC-CX (Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur V. Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills Ltd.), the Apex Court held that in view of the findings rendered by the Tribunal that the machineries were complete and having regard to the meaning of the expression components/parts , with reference to the particular industry in question, the Apex Court rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. 11. Thus going by the factual finding, which are distinguishable from the facts found by the Authorities below in the case on hand, we have no hesitation in rejecting the Revenue's appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sories inside the manufacturing premises are eligible for credit. The principle of user test evolved by the Honble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills (supra) has been applied in this regard. A reference can be made to the latest decision of the Tribunal in Singhal Enterprises vide Final Order No.53013 dated 12.08.2016. The findings are as under:- 13. Now we turn to the question, whether credit is admissible on various structural steel items, such as, MS Angles, Sections, Channels, TMT Bar etc., which have been used by the appellants in the fabrication of support structures on which various capital goods are placed? The same stands denied by the lower authority. The learned DR has sought disallowance of the same by citing the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra) and other judgments. Further, he has brought to our notice and emphasised the amendment carried out in Explanation-II to Rule 2(a) which defines the term input w.e.f. 07.07.2009. It has further been pleaded that the cenvat credit claimed for the period prior to this will be covered within the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l be entitled to the Cenvat Credit. 9. We also note that emphasis was made by Revenue on the immovability of the capital goods, the fabrication of which was done using the duty paid items. We note that the capital goods as defined under Rule 2 (a) if CCR, 2004 includes apart from all goods falling under Chapter 82, 84, 85, 90, etc. Pollution Control Equipment, moulds, dies, jigs and fixtures, refractory and refractory materials, tubes and pipes and fittings thereof, storage tank, etc. For instance, it cannot be said that the credit on storage tank and other large capital goods will be allowed only if they are brought into the premises of the manufacturer as such in a movable condition. Storage tanks and pollution control equipments, etc are fabricated and integrated to the other machines of the plant in a factory. When a storage tank is linked to the other processing machine, the pipe and other fittings including their accessories, which hold such linkage will necessarily form part of the machinery and cannot be denied credit on the ground that they are fixed permanently. In any case, except for a summary assertion in the impugned order, it is not categorically established in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
