9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her credit is admissible on MS items used for steel shots? - Held that: - The issue stands decided in the cases/judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. In Mukand Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-II [2005 (8) TMI 561 - CESTAT, MUMBAI], the Tribunal has analysed the issue and held in favour of assessee, where it was held that whether it is not disputed that the "Sted Shot" used in or relation to manufacture of the final products, Modvat credit is admissible irrespective of the fact whether they are capital goods or not under Rules 57A and 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Denial of credit on the diesel generator set - Held that: - As per the proviso to Rule 9(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, in case of any doubt with regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices availed for the purpose of construction of compound wall and disallowed the credit availed under the category of capital goods. Being aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 3. On behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel Shri K Vaitheeswaran submitted that the MS plates and angles were used for making Surface Testing Bench; that Surface Testing Bench falls under Chapter 90 of the CETA, 1985 and therefore the goods would fall under the category of capital goods and are eligible for credit. That MS items were also used for steel shots in shot blasting machines. In regard to the eligibility of credit, he placed reliance on the judgment laid in Mukand Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai-II [2006(205) ELT 886 (Tri. Mumbai)] and in CC&C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ace Testing Bench at 90312000. Therefore the said item falls within the definition of capital goods and therefore the denial of credit is unjustified. The next issue is whether steel shots are capital goods or not and whether credit is admissible on MS items used for steel shots. The issue stands decided in the cases/judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. In Mukand Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal has analysed the issue and held in favour of assessee which reads as under:- 6. I have heard both the sides at length on the issue involved ill the appeal. The issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision in the case of CCE, Kanpur v. Bharat Industries reported in 2000 (120) 362 (Tribunal). It is observed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
