9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty. It has been alleged that the appellants during the period from 2005-06 to 2007-08 wrongly availed the CENVAT credit on MS Channels, Angles, M.S. Bars, Beams etc., falling under Heading No. 72.14 and 72.16 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which are not covered under the definition of capital goods as specified under Rule 2(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 2004. It has further been alleged that Chapter 72 has not been specified in Clause A(i) of Rule 2(a) of the said Rules. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. 2. Learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant contested the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essential with nuts and bolts because the attachment is not permanent and what is attached can be easily detached It is categorically stated that these items were used to install the machines at their factory. The appellant claimed that these items are accessories used in the plants and machineries. In terms of Clause (iii) of Rule 2(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, "Capital goods" covers components, spares, accessories used in the goods specified in Clause (i) and Clause (ii) irrespective of any heading. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant had not submitted any document and he had proceeded on the basis that these items were used as building material. The department failed to produce any material that these items were us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al is also in respect of the very? same assessee and therefore, we find no distinguishable fact or issue contrary to the earlier decision of this Court. The Tribunal has also found that the assessee has satisfied the user test in the present case. Hence, following the principles laid down in the decision reported in 2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.) and the earlier decision of this Court in C.M.A. No. 3101 of 2005, dated 13-12-2012, we are inclined to reject the appeal, thereby confirm the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed. No costs." 6. In my considered view, the above decision would apply n the present case. I also fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
