9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her specifically classified as parts and components of capital goods or specifically included in such category complying with User Test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE, Coimbatore vs. Jawahar Mills Limited [2001 (7) TMI 118 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Denial of CENVAT credit not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee. - Appeal No. E/60132/2013-EX [DB] - Final Order No. 56201 /2016-EX [DB] - Dated:- 30-12-2016 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Balbir, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Yogesh Agarwal, DR for the Respondent ORDER Per B. Ravichandran The appeal is against Order dated 23.07.2013 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the credit on the same cannot be denied. (d) The emphasis made by the Original Authority on the immovability of the machinery is not relevant, the excisability of capital goods after its fabrication, is not subject of dispute. It is the credit eligibility of various components of accessories of such capital goods is subject matter of dispute. Reliance was placed on various decided cases in support of the above contention. (e) Cenvat credit of structural items steel, HR Plates and HR Coils, Beams of Boiler, Vertical Bracing etc. were denied on the ground that such support structures were not eligible for credit in view of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Vandana Global Limited 2010 (253) 440 ELT (LB-Tri.). Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k trolley, Cable Trays, Parts of conveyer, Hydro coils, components for Air Pollution control system etc. The credit of duty paid on these items was also denied without any detailed justification. We note that the duty paid items were brought in, which are clearly identified as components, parts or accessories of specific capital goods with specification which are covered by the definition of capital goods. In terms of explanation 2(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, there can be no reason for denial of such credit. We mention this only to point out that denial of credit have been made on summarily discussion and conclusion based on purported immovability of capital goods fabricated by the appellants. We find that no restriction has been put i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal in various decisions held that Cenvat credit on MS items cannot be denied on the ground of their classification or the capital goods when fabricated getting embedded to the earth for operational reasons. In Monnet Ispat Energy Limited vs. CCE, Raipur 2015 (330) ELT 711 (Tri. Del.), it was held that Cenvat credit was taken on the steel items when they are used for fabrication of components, accessories, support items, the credit cannot be denied on the ground that the final product are embedded to earth. We note that in the present case, various disputed items on which credit has been taken were either specifically classified as parts and components of capital goods or specifically included in such category complying with User Test l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment made w.e.f. 07.07.2009 as a clarification amendment and hence to be considered retrospectively. However, we find that the said decision of the Larger Bench was considered by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Ports Special Economic Zone Limited - 2015 (04) LCX0197, wherein it was observed that the amendment made on 07.07.2009 cannot be held to be clarificatory and as such would be applicable only prospectively. 15. We find that the controversy can be laid to rest by making a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills Ltd., 2010 (255) ELT 481 (SC), wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has considered an identical issue of steel plates and MS channel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Original Authority relied on an order dated 15.01.2002, issued by the Board under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This order clarifies the excisability of erection and fabrication of plant and machinery at site. In this case, we are not dealing with excise duty liability when various capital goods and machinery fabricated or erected by the appellant while building up power plant or machinery in their unit. We are dealing with the provisions of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 to apply the same for credit eligibility of the appellant. As noted earlier in the order, that the Show Cause Notice contained complete list and details of items in invoice, classification and description of items of which credit have been availed by the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
