TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d broilers are used in manufacture of appellant's final product. It is emphasized that the boiler manufacturer himself is selling the structure, it being utmost necessary for the said boiler to be put to use. The invoices as emphasized by the appellant (as placed on record) sufficiently supports the contention of the appellant. What stands excluded to be called as input is the structure which is fabricated out of the objects like MS Angles/Sheets/ Joints Fights, etc. The same is not true for the structure in the present case. Mere nomenclature of a part of the boiler as MS Structure is not sufficient to falsify the User Test principle as was laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide the Order in original bearing No.11 of 10.08.2018. The appeal thereof has been modified by setting aside the demand of ₹ 8,23,118/- out of the confirmed demand, it being with respect to such 26 number of invoices vide which the parts of the biomass boilers (the capital goods were purchased. However, the remaining demand was still confirmed denying availability of Cenvat Credit on MS structure and on Nilkamal Trays. Still being aggrieved of the order-in-appeal bearing No. 290 dated 06.12.2018 that the same has been assailed in the present appeal. 2. I have heard Shri Ghanshyam Giri, Advocate for the appellant and Shri Yashvir Sigh, Authorised Representative for the Department. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pressed upon. Justifying the said order appeal is prayed to be dismissed. After hearing the rival contentions, perusing the entire record and going to the case law as referred, I am of the opinion as follows. That the Cenvat Credit is available either with respect to the inputs or the capital goods used by the manufacturer in manufacturing the final product. MS Structure, the good as has been objected to neither being a capital good nor an input has been denied the availment of Cenvat Credit. Hence, the moot controversy in the present case to be adjudicated is as whether the MS Structure in the present case qualifies either to be called as input or the capital goods. No doubt, the definition of input in Rule 2L of Cenvat Credit Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and weaving Mills Ltd. Reported as 2010 (255) ELT 481 (SP) . This judgement was subsequently followed by Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CCE Tiruchirapalli Vs. M/s India Cements Ltd. reported as 2012 (285) ELT 341 (Mad.) wherein it was held that once any structure is so integral to a capital good that the said capital good cannot function in absence of said structure (Chimney in that case and MS Structure in the case present case) the same has to be considered as the part of the capital goods itself. Learned Counsel has produced a decision of Coordinate Bench at Ahmadabad in respect of appellant's old case i.e the final order No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
