9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 73 of the CETA, 1985. During the verification of the records of the appellant, it was noticed that the appellant has wrongly availed CENVAT credit on MS plates, HR sheets, angles, channels, beams, joists and MS flats falling under Chapter 72 were used as inputs for fabrication of bunkers. The bunkers are not considered as capital goods since the same are embedded to the earth and are immovable and non-excisable. Therefore, the subject goods are not covered under inputs in terms of Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR). The bunkers are also not capital goods as they are covered neither under Rule 2(a)(A) nor under 2(a)(A)(ii) to (vii) of CCR. Therefore, a show-cause notice dated 11.1.2008 was issued to the appellant for demanding CENV ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failed to produce any material evidence or certificate. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: * Metrochem Industries LTd. vs. CCE, Vadodar-I: 2013 (292) ELT 578 (Tri.-Ahmd.) * Global Energy Food Industries vs. CCE, Ahmedabad: 2014 (300) ELT 298 (Tri.-Ahmd.) * Unioson Metal Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad: 2010 (253) ELT 618 (Tri.-Ahmd.) * HPCL vs. CCE, Mumbai: 2011 (269) ELT 422 (Tri.-Mum.) * India Cements Ltd. vs. CCE, Trichy: 2013 (296) ELT 513 (Tri.-Chennai) * Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur: 2008 (228) ELT 445 (Tri.-Del.) * Unitech Machines Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut-I: 2015 (329) ELT860 (Tri.-Del.) * Commissioner vs. Reliance Ports & Terminals Ltd.: 2016 (334) ELT 630 (Guj.) 4.1 He ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record and various decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra, I find that this issue has been settled in favour of the appellant by various decisions cited supra wherein it has been held that the availment of credit on various items of iron and steel which are used in fabrication of storage tanks/bunkers are held to be inputs and the assessee is entitled to CENVAT credit of the same. After following the ratios of the above said decisions, I am of the view that the impugned order denying the CENVAT credit on iron and steel items is not sustainable in law and therefore, I set aside the same by allowing the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
