9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugned order wherein the demand proposed in the show-cause notice for denying CENVAT credit taken by the respondent on supporting structure was dropped. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are the manufacturers of sugar and molasses. To set up their sugar plant, they entered into an agreement with the supplier to supply the plant & machinery and some structures to support their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods specified at item no. 1 of capital goods as specified in Rule 57AA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and both the lower authorities have relied upon the decision of Simbhaoli Sugar Mill Ltd. (supra) which has been considered by the Apex Court in Saraswati Sugar Mills 2011 (270) ELT 465 (SC) and the Apex Court came at a decision that for supporting structures CENVAT credit on the inputs is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 6. It is not a case that the supporting structures in dispute were erected in the factory of the respondent. In the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills (supra), the issue before the Apex Court was whether the Joints channels, angles and MS beams used in the fabricating supporting structures for installation of equipments are entitled to CENVAT credit. Admittedly, these items were purchased by the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erected at the site of the respondent.
9. Therefore, following the decision in the case of M/s. India Cement Ltd. (supra), I hold that the respondent is entitled to take the credit as per impugned order.
10. In these terms, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order; the same is upheld. Appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated in Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
