2016 (12) TMI 219

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it of ‘Capital Goods’ as contemplated under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, hence will be entitled to the Cenvat Credit In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Excise Appeal No. 3007 of 2012 & E/Cross/4226 of 2012 - Final Order No. 55255/ 2016 - Dated:- 21-11-2016 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Sh. Yogesh Aggarwal, AR for the Revenue Ms. Shreya Dahiya, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per Justice ( Dr. ) Satish Chandra The present appeal is filed against the order No. 115/RPR-I/2012 dated 24.07.2012 passed by Commi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur-2016-TIOL-2451-CESTAT-DEL (Excise Appeal No. 58596/2013-EX(DB) dated 12.08.2016 has observed as under: 13. Now we turn to the question, whether credit is admissible on various structural steel items, such as, MS Angles, Sections, Channels, TMT Bar etc., which have been used by the appellants in the fabrication of support structures on which various capital goods are placed? The same stands denied by the lower authority. The learned DR has sought disallowance of the same by citing the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra) and other judgments. Further, he has brought to our notice and emphasised the amendment carried out in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... evolved by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Coimbatore vs. Jawahar Mills Ltd. -2001 (132) ELT 3 (SC)= 2012-TIOL-87-SC-CX, which is required to be satisfied to find out whether or not particular goods could be said to be capital goods. When we apply the user test to the case in hand, we find that the structural steel items have been used for the fabrication of support structures for capital goods. The appellants have argued that the various capital goods, such as, kiln, material handling conveyor system, furnace etc. cannot be suspended in mid air. They will need to be suitably supported to facilitate smooth functioning of such machines. It is obvious that the structural items have been suitably worked upon for this purpose. Accordingly, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X