2013 (11) TMI 1391

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A Show Cause Notice dated 05.06.2009 was issued denying the Cenvat credit on various articles of iron and steel, namely, M.S. Angles, M.S. Channels, M.S. Beams, M.S. Bars, HR/CR Coils, M.S. Pipes etc. The original authority confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and penalty for the period May, '08 to Apr.'09. Commissioner (Appeals) modified the adjudication order insofar as it has allowed eligibility of credit only on M.S. Pipes. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that these goods were used in the construction of their Bio-mass Fired Boiler, Sulphuric Acid Concentration Unit and Iron and Steel Chemicals Unit. He submits that these fabricated items were used in support of the pipes and boi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... held that credit on the iron and steel products is not eligible for supporting structures of machineries. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Upper Ganges Sugar & Industries Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II reported in 2013 (293) E.L.T.186 (All). 7. After hearing both sides and on perusal of records, I find that the issue involved whether the credit is eligible on the M.S. Angles, M.S. Panels, M.S. Beams, M.S. Bars, M.S. Plates, HR/CR Coils used for supporting structures. I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. reported in 2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) has allowed the credit on these item .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... elied upon by the learned counsel is in respect of structural support, fabricated by the assessee treated as integral part of the plant & machinery and, therefore, M.S. Angles, Plates and Rounds for fabrication of the structural support should be made necessary. In the present case, it has already been held that these items are not integral part of the plant & machinery, and, therefore, the said decision will not apply herein. 10. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Commissioner (Appeals). However, it is a case of interpretation of the rules and, therefore, penalty is not sustainable. Accordingly , penalty is set aside. Appeal disposed of in the above terms. (Dictated and pronounced in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X