2017 (3) TMI 921

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of capital goods or inputs - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) Shri Karan Talwar, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent(AR) for the Respondent. [Order Per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S.,] This case has a chequered history and has several rounds of litigation. The appellants are manufacturers of iron and steel products and are registered with the Central Excise Department. They were issued 14 show-cause notices for an amount of ₹ 13,07,51,294/- being the modvat credit alleged to be taken wrongly on the duty paid on 4384 items during the period November 1994 to December 1995. The show-cause notice alleged that the items do not fall under capital goods as per t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ,63,64,70,73,78 15,33,636 7. Hoses 58 40,400 8. Resins for mould making 49 1,24,244 9. Steel items used for spare parts 7,8,31,41,60,61,69 8,40,940 10. Lubricants 51,71 11,297 11. Ingots for moulds 80 16,350 Total 42,43,285 3. He adverted to each item in the above table and submitted that all these items would be eligible for credit under category of capital goods or inputs. That whether welding electrodes are eligible for credit has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of CC&CE&ST, Guntur Vs. The Andhra Sugars Ltd. [2016-TIOL-2047-CESTAT-HYD]. That the welding electrodes, and MS plates were used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery. That in the appellant's own case, the jurisdictional High Court .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and also taking note of the nature of subject items and their use as explained by the counsel for appellant, I am of the view that disallowance of credit is unjustified. This Tribunal has discussed in detail the eligibility of credit of most of the items shown in the table in the case of M/s. The Andhra Sugars Ltd. (supra). Further Larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramala Sahakari Chini Mills Vs. CCE Meerut 2016(334) ELT 3 (SC)] has held that the word 'include' in the definition of inputs cannot be given a restrictive approach. The above items shown in the table would fall under the category of capital goods or inputs. Therefore I do not find any ground to disallow the credit. The impugned order disallowing the credi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X