Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (11) TMI 1089

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion of capital goods in terms of Rule 2(a) ibid and are generally used for structures providing support to the capital goods which are excluded from the definition of capital goods. Apart from this bald allegation, no cogent evidence has been put forth by the department to show that these parts have been used for structural purpose and therefore in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the claim made by the appellant cannot be denied. Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the matter of M/S. INDIA CEMENTS LTD. VERSUS THE CUSTOM, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, [ 2015 (3) TMI 661 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] has held that M.S. Rod, sheet, M.S. Channel/Plate/flat etc used for erection/fabrication of str .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in terms of Rule 2(a) Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and also that such items are generally used for structures providing support to capital goods which are clearly excluded from the definition of capital goods. 2. The issue to be decided is whether the appellant, who is manufacturing sugar molasses, is justified in availing the Cenvat credit on various items viz. S.S. Welding Tube, Steel, Tubes, Alloy Steel Pipe, Prime HR Steel Coil, M.S.Wire, M.S.Slate, S.S. Welded tube, H.R. Steel pipe, Link Outer which, according to them, have been used in those machines which are manufacturing the final product? 3. The facts leading to the filing of the Appeals are stated in brief as follows. The appellants are manufacturers of sugar and molasses an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, should not be imposed upon them. 4. The same was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and the appeal filed by the appellant against the adjudicating order was rejected by the learned Commissioner vide order dated 08.02.2018 without going into the merits, for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 35F, Central Excise Act, 1944. Thereafter this Tribunal, in an Appeal filed by the Appellant, vide order dated 05.10.2018 while observing that the appellant has complied with the requirement of section 35F ibid, remanded the case back to the learned Commissioner for deciding the appeal afresh on merits. After remand, the learned Commissione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ave heard rival submissions and perused the Appeal paper book including the synopsis/ written submissions and the case laws cited by the respective sides. The issue herein pertains to denial of Cenvat credit to the appellants, who is the manufacturer of Sugar and molasses, on Steel tubes, M.S. Wire, SS Welding Tube, Alloy Steel, Pipe, H.R. Steel Pipe, chain, M.S. Slate, H.R. Steel Coil, Link outer. The basis of denial is that these are not the capital goods and the appellant had failed to produce any evidence in support of their submission. According to learned Counsel the said items are utilized by the appellant in machines such as Pan Quadruple Body, Evaporator Juice Heater, Oliver Gas line piping spray piping, Sulpher burner, cen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es, MS angles, channels as capital goods and allowed the Cenvat credit availed by the appellant therein. There the Tribunal has also recorded that apart from a bald allegation in the SCN that these items are used as support structures or for laying foundation, department has not put forward any cogent evidence to show that these are support structures for particular item of capital goods. Similarly in the matter of The Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CCE, Lucknow; 2015 SCC Online CESTAT 3577 the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal, following the decision of the Tribunal in the matters of Uttam Sugar Mills. vs. CCE, Ghaziabad; 2006(74) RLT 697 and Simbhaoli Suga rMills Ltd. vs. Commr [which has been upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates