9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal arises from rejection of the appeal of M/s JSW Steel Coated Products Ltd (formerly N/s JSW Ispat Steel Ltd) and consequent upholding of the confirmation of demand of Rs. 48,49,642/- sought to be recovered, under rule 14 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, on 'steel plates' of various grades utilized by the appellant for repair, maintenance and replacement of 'acid tank', 'annealing furnace' and 'buckets' in the factory of manufacture, along with interest leviable thereon, and imposition of penalty of like amount under section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. The appellant is a manufacturer of 'cold-rolled (CR) sheets/coils', 'galvanized sheets/coils' and 'colour-coated sheets' and the dispute relates to the credit availed on 'steel pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rewa Plant v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [2003 (159) ELT 553 (Tri.-LB)], holding that repairs and maintenance of machinery are not normally to be considered as process of manufacture and consequently ineligible for credit, to draw attention to the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in ACC Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - II [2018 (361) ELT 343 (Bom.)], of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in Hindustan Zinc Ltd v. Union of India [2008 (228) ELT 517 (Raj.)] and of the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in Ambuja Cements Eastern Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [2010 (256) ELT 690 (Chhattisgarh)] holding that the Larger Bench of the Tribunal had not considered the ratio of the decision of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, used for raising structure to support the various machines, parts of machineries of the plant would be covered by the explanation to Rule 57Q as a capital goods. The Tribunal referred to its own decision in Malvika Steel Limited's case [1998 (97) E.L.T. 530 (Tribunal)] and without semblance of any discussion, has partly allowed the assessee's appeal. In view of our findings and the conclusion in the earlier part of the judgment, we cannot agree with the reasoning of the Tribunal.' to contend that sections and shapes are not 'capital goods'. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh Sree Rayalaseema Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Tirupati [2012 (278) ELT 167 (AP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f relevant paragraph of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited was reproduced and the material portion which lays down that the goods need not be ingredients or commodities used in the process, nor must they be directly and actually needed for "turning out or the creation of goods" was not considered. The Rajasthan High Court therefore, proceeded to hold that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal is no longer a good law. The same issue arose for consideration of Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Ambuja Cement (supra). Ultimately it was held that the decision in the case of Jaypee Rewa Plant (supra) is not a good law. 12. Now, coming back to the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration was the duty liability on steel structures used for installation of capital good covered by rule 57Q of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 enabling availment of MODVAT credit on such capital goods and in the context of notification no. 67/95-CE dated 16th March 1995 granting exemption to capital goods that fell within the enumeration in rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such steel structures are not components which conformed to the definition of rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and, consequently, liable to duty in view of non-eligibility for the cited exemption. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering duty liability and reference to rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 194 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. That claim of the appellant herein has been discarded by the original authority on procedural grounds and had not been considered by the first appellate authority at all. The order of the first appellate authority, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in re ACC Ltd, does not sustain and is set aside. 13. The first appellate authority has failed to subject the order of the original authority, on the discarding of claim for coverage as 'inputs' for availment of CENVAT credit on the part of the appellant, to scrutiny. This is an aspect that requires consideration by the original authority. To enable this, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the original authority to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
