TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 799X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this appeal, the department has challenged the grant of CENVAT credit to the respondent by the lower appellate authority in respect of certain items held to be capital goods. In adjudication of a show-cause notice, the original authority had held that the respondent had wrongly availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 3,98,173/- on CTD bars and angles, channels, sheets, HR coils, beams, etc. and utilised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise Tariff schedule would not qualify to be capital goods. They cannot be considered as components, spares or accessories of any capital goods. Apart from reiterating the above case of the appellant, the learned DR has relied on the following decisions of this Tribunal : (1) Commissioner of Central Excise v. DSM Ltd. - 2003 (162) E.L.T. 987 (Tri.-Del.); (2) Kisan Co-Operative Sugar Factory Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to be any precedent for the instant case wherein the question to be considered is whether the channels, sheets, coils, etc. used by the respondent for fabrication work would qualify to be capital goods under Rule 2(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, inasmuch as the period of dispute in this case is October to December, 2005. The above rule reads as follows : "2. In these, rules, unless the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the factory-shed wherein additional plant and machinery were to be housed as part of an expansion project in 2005-06. The respondent says that they were used for fabrication of a reactor, but this claim is yet to be substantiated. In other words, the fact stated by the appellant stands unrebutted. Therefore, I have got to proceed on the premise that the channels, angles, sheets, coils, etc., w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsence of any applicable case law, the issue has to be settled with reference to the statutory provisions. Accordingly, it is held that the materials in question would not qualify to be capital goods under Rule 2(a)(A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 for the period of dispute. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated in Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|