TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 848X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the appellant s own case - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Central Excise Appeal No. 20982 of 2019 - Final Order No. 20075/2021 - Dated:- 22-3-2021 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri J.N. Somaiya, Advocate For the Respondent : Smt. C.V. Savitha, Superintendent(AR) ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt. 29/05/2019 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), Belagavi whereby he rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in- Original. 2. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of sugar, molasses and distillery products. During the course of verification of ER-1 returns, it was noticed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside the order of the Commissioner. He further submitted that in the present case exactly the same items are involved which were involved in the earlier case and the grounds of denial is also the same. 4.2. He further submitted that the Nickel Screen (falling under CH.75) and pugmill (falling under CH.73) are used as part of the centrifugal machine (falling under CH.84) which separates molasses from sugar. As per the definition of capital goods given under Rule 2(a) of CCR, 2004, all the components/parts of the capital goods (falling under CH.84/85/90) are also eligible capital goods and hence there is no question of denial and recovery of the said credit. For this, he relied upon the following decisions:- a. Simbholi Sugar Mills Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3) b. CCE V/s.Millenium Starch India Pvt.Ltd., 2018(3)TMI-914 c. Gemini Graphics Pvt.Ltd. V/s.CCE, 2018(10)TMI-1468 d. CCE V/s.Sanghi Industries Ltd., 2018(5)TMI-1507 e. CCE V/s.Almac Enterprises, 2018(5)TMI-1523 f. Hindustan Copper Ltd. V/s.CCE, 2016(10)TMI-1183 g. Kisan Sah.Chinni Mills Ltd. V/s.CCE, 2013(292)ELT-394 4.5. He further submitted that both the authorities have not considered the certificate from the Chartered Engineer wherein the Chartered Engineer has certified the usage of each and every item which are in dispute. In the certificate, the Chartered Engineer certified that the impugned goods during the relevant period have been used for repair/maintenance / modification / expantion of various machines / e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngineer was submitted by the appellant. Further I find that most of the impugned goods have been covered in the definition of inputs and have been used for repair and maintenance / fabrication of capital goods. The various decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra have held the eligibility of the assessee for CENVAT credit for various goods which have been used for manufacturing of final product. Further I find that the credit of ₹ 26,27,670/- have been availed on the goods falling under Chapters 84, 85, and 90 which are specifically covered in the definition of capital goods as contained in Rule 2(a) of CCR, 2004. Further I find that Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Singhal Enterprises cited supra, in para 15 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
