TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere in turn used for manufacture of excisable goods. Further, the circular dated 2nd December, 1996 issued by the CBEC fully supports the case of the Respondent. Reference could also be made to the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. M/s. Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills Ltd. [ 2010 (7) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT ] where the Supreme court allowed MODVAT credit on steel plates and M.S. channels used in the fabrication of chimney for the diesel generating set. The CESTAT was justified in dismissing the Department s appeal since the credit was claimed in respect of the inputs used for fabrication items supporting structures of capital goods - the CESTAT was right in law by allowing CENVAT Credit on the goods used for fabrication of supporting structure for capital goods - Tribunal was right in law in holding that the fabrication goods used for supporting structures were capital goods for which CENVAT Credit was allowable. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - OTAPL Nos.4, 33 and 34 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 24-11-2021 - THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. S. MURALIDHAR And JUSTICE A. K. MOHAPATRA For the Appellants : Mr. Choudhury Satyajit Mishra, Senior St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tting this appeal on 6th March, 2020. 6. Since the facts are more or less similar, the facts in OTAPL 4 of 2018 alone are discussed. The Respondent Company had obtained a Central Excise Registration under Section 6 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (CE Act) for the purposes of manufacturing of sponge iron and its derivative products. For manufacturing, the Respondent constructed/installed 4 100TPD Sponge Iron Plant and availed CENVAT Credit on input on various items during the relevant period i.e. from May to August, 2004. A part of the inputs included construction materials. 7. On 7th June, 2005, the Commissioner, Central Excise Customs, Bhubaneswar issued a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice to the Respondent inter alia on the following grounds: (i) The amount of ₹ 1,20,61,289/- on inputs taken wrongly by the notice during the month from May, 2004 to August, 2004 shall not be recovered from them under Rule-12 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) Interest at the appropriate rate shall not be recovered from them under Rule-12 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AB of the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 65/95-CE were also examined by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. [2011- TIOL-558 HC-MAD-CX]. The observation of the Tribunal in the Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is relevant in this regard. 8. The Ld. A.R. Also relied on the decisions relating to Telecom Towers passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs. CEE-Pune III reported in 2014 (35) S.T.R. 865 (Bom.). We note that the present case we are dealing with the eligibility of a manufacturer for credit on iron steel and items which are in fact found to be used in the fabrication of identifiable capital goods which are in turn used for manufacture of excisable goods. Bharti Airtel Ltd. deals with service provider and facts are not applicable to the case at hand. 9. In view of above discussion and analysis, we find that the impugned order has examined the issues in details and had arrived at sustainable conclusion in line with the ratio adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, various High Courts and by this Tribunal also. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere in the said order. The appeal is dismissed. 11. This Court has heard the submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as component parts for the finished products, viz. vacuum pan, crystallizers, sugar grader, elevator, cooling tower etc. The Supreme Court then factually found that the iron and steel structures would not go into the composition of vacuum pans, crystallizers etc. and, therefore, do not satisfy the description of components. 13.5 The Assessee attempted to rely on a circular dated 2nd December, 1996 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs clarifying that the scope of the entry under Rule 57Q was not restricted only to the components, spares and accessories falling under Chapters 82, 84, 85 or 90 but covered all components, spares and accessories of the specified goods irrespective of their classification . However, the Assessee was not permitted to advance the said argument since the circular in question on which reliance was placed was not produced by it before the CESTAT. 14. The Court finds however that in the present case the categorical finding on fact concurrently both by the Commissioner and the CESTAT is that the iron steel and items were in fact used in the fabrication of identifiable capital goods which were in turn used for manufacture of excisable goods. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
