9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ems used in fabrication of pollution control equipment would be eligible for Cenvat credit and the Cenvat credit cannot be denied just on the ground that the pollution control equipment is embedded in the earth. In any case, any item of machinery or equipment which has either been fabricated in the factory or has been brought to the factory, would after installation, become fixed to the earth and, therefore, in my view on this ground, the Cenvat credit cannot be denied - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. 99 of 2011 (SM) - Final Order No. 55379/2013(PB) - Dated:- 18-1-2013 - Shri Rakesh Kumar, J. For the Appellant: Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate For the Respondent: Shri B.B. Sharma, Authorized Representative (DR) JUDGEM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this plea was not accepted by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the plant and machinery assembled and escaped at site cannot be treated as goods for the purpose of excise duty. On appeal to Commissioner (Appeals), the above order of the Assistant Commissioner was upheld vide order-in-appeal dated 15/11/20910. In this order also the Commissioner (Appeals) while accepting that the steel items, in question MS Angles, Channels, Joists, GP Sheets etc. were used in fabrication of evaporation plant, which is part of pollution control system, held that the Cenvat credit would not be admissible, as the evaporation plant is immovable and embedded in the earth and hence not goods. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order is not sustainable. 4. Shri B.B. Sharma, the learned Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in it and emphasised that in this case the pollution control equipment in whose fabrication the steel items, in question, were used is embedded in the earth and the same is not goods and, therefore, would not be covered by the definition of capital goods. He, therefore, pleaded in view of the facts of this case, the judgment of Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur reported in 2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri. LB) would become applicable and accordingly, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. I have considered the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
