9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (7) TMI 82 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit alleged that M.S. Channels and M.S. Beams on which the credit was taken by the appellant are neither the capital goods or the components, spares, accessories of capital goods as defined under Rule 2(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 Held that - Beams have been used to keep the electric motor in the elevated position and the motor is connected to the roller to facilitate the movement of the finished goods manufactured by the appellant. If the motor is required to be put in the elevated position for requirement of machinery, it cannot be said as a supporting structure, but treated as a structural part. As regards the M.S. channels, the ld.Consultant submitted that the same were used as rollers to move the finished goods, would show that they have not been used as supporting structure - appellant is eligible for the credit availed by them In favor of assessee
Issues: Denial of CENVAT Credit for M.S. Channels and M.S. Beams
Paragraph 1: The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the CENVAT Credit of Rs.64,552 availed by the appellant, stating that M.S. Channels and M.S. Beams used by the appellant are not considered capital goods or their components under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Paragraph 2: The appellant's consultant argued that the M.S. Channels and Beams were used to fabricate machinery within the factory, providing details on how they were utilized in the process. Reference was made to a circular by the Board to support the claim that these materials were used as structural parts, not merely for support. Paragraph 3: The Revenue's representative contended that the M.S. beams and channels were used to support machinery, leading to the denial of CENVAT Credit by the Commissioner (Appeals). Paragraph 4: After reviewing the submissions and photographs, the judge observed that the M.S. beams were used to elevate the electric motor, which was connected to a roller for moving finished goods. The judge determined that this usage did not constitute mere support but rather as a structural part. Similarly, the M.S. channels were used as rollers for moving goods, indicating they were not solely for support. Paragraph 5: Considering the arguments and evidence presented, the judge found the appellant eligible for the credit availed. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with relief granted to the appellant.
|
