TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 845X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en denied for the reason of non-submission of documents whereas the showcause notice itself confirms the usage of the capital goods. In the case of Renuka Sugars Ltd. Vs. CCE [2017 (5) TMI 47 - CESTAT BANGALORE], the Tribunal has considered various decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court and has come to the conclusion that various items like angles, channels, beams etc. are eligible for CENVAT credit if they are used for repair and maintenance of building or even for fabrication of structures. The impugned order is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/21420/2018-SM, E/21191/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20109-20110/2019 - Dated:- 18-1-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Aneesh, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 72 73. Thereafter show-cause notices dt. 01/09/2009 and 01/09/2015 were issued alleging that the appellant has wrongly availed CENVAT credit of duty paid on HR sheets, coils, angles as capital goods which have been used for fabrication of structural parts for capital goods. The original authority after following the due process vide order dt. 25/11/2016 and 16/11/2016 confirmed the demands along with interest and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved by the said orders, appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner(Appeals) who dismissed the same. Hence the present appeals. 3. Heard both sides 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 p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tri. Bang.)] ii. JK Cement Works Vs. CCE [2017(345) ELT 301 (Tri. Del.)] iii. CCE Vs. HPCL [2016(338) ELT 308 (Tri. Hyd.)]- Appeal against this order was dismissed by the High Court as reported in 2017(356) ELT A137 (AP) iv. Andhra Sugars Vs. CCE [2018-TIOL-2691-CESTAT-HYD] v. Sanghi Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE [2017-TIOL-3817-CESTAT-AHM] vi. Renuka Sugars Ltd. Vs. CCE [2017-TIOL-2201-CESTAT-BANG] vii. CCE Vs. Alfred Albert India Ltd. [2010-TIOL-427-HC-KAR] viii. Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CCE [2018- TIOL-906-CESTAT-AHM] 4.3. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has travelled beyond the scope of show-cause notice inasmuch as there was no requirement in the show-cause notice for producin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods which are used for fabrication of structural parts for capital goods whereas the appellant authority has travelled beyond the scope of show-cause notice inasmuch as there was no requirement in the show-cause notices for producing documentary evidences for usage of the goods. The credit has been denied for the reason of non-submission of documents whereas the showcause notice itself confirms the usage of the capital goods. In support of this submission, reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of CCE Vs. Toyo Engineering Ltd. [2006(201) ELT 513 (SC)]. Further I find that the only ground on which the original authority has rejected the CENVAT credit is that the impugned goods are not used for repair and maintenance and have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court decision in the cases of CCE, Tiruchirapalli Vs. India Cements Ltd. [2012(285) ELT 341 (Mad.)] and CCE, thirchirappalli Vs. India Cements Ltd. [2014(305) ELT 558 (Mad.)], the stand taken by the Revenue is not acceptable for the facts present for the case in hand. 8.6. Further, considering the observations made by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Jawahar Mills and Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills (supra) and after applying the user test , we are of the considered view that the subject items namely, angles, channels, beams, etc. would be eligible for the CENVAT credit. 7. Therefore by following the ratios of the above said decisions, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
