9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dutiable goods. Further, IISIPL have since been merged with the respondent in terms of orders of the Hon’ble High Court of the Bombay w.e.f. 31.03.2008 - a similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the respondent’s own case in respect of capital goods acquired on lease basis for another part of the respondent’s factory. He relied upon the case of Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur [2016 (3) TMI 127 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that Rule 4(3) only further enlarges scope by stating that the credit would not be disallowed even if capital goods are cleared from the financing company. It does not mean that the capital goods must be acquired from a financing company and any other acquisition of capital goods from the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctober 2009). The respondent entered to an agreement on 28.08.2008 with M/s Inertial Iron Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd (IISIPL) on 23.12.2006 for construction of 3 lakh MT Bar Mill within the respondent s factory premises. A further agreement was entered into with M/s IISIPL by which M/s IISIPL would enhance the installed capacity of Rolling Mill to 4 lakh MT and would retain the ownership theirof. This Rolling Mill would be leased to the respondent on payment of monthly fee. Further, another lease agreement dated 11.07.2008 was entered between IISIPL and the respondent by which the Sinter Plant-II was also leased. For commissioning of mills, several orders were placed by M/s IISIPL for purchase of capital goods as well as various steel item ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the respondent. 4. The main ground for seeking disallowance of Cenvat credit of about ₹ 28 crores was that M/s IISIPL is not a Finance Company but is engaged in industrial operation. Rule 4(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules allows Cenvat credit of capital goods if such capital goods are acquired or leased from a Finance Company. The Cenvat credit was disallowed on the ground that M/s. IISIPL is not a finance company. However, in the impugned order the ld. Commissioner has taken the view that ownership is irrelevant to decide the admissibility of credit. He held that the goods were procured by M/s IISIPL but since these were consigned to the respondent; they will be entitled to the credit M/s. IISIPL has got subsequently merged with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble High Court of the Bombay w.e.f. 31.03.2008. We find that a similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the respondent s own case in respect of capital goods acquired on lease basis for another part of the respondent s factory. He relied upon the case of Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur, 2016 (332) ELT 885 (Tri.-Delhi). On identical facts the Tribunal as held as follows: 6. The main point for decision is as to whether Cenvat credit availed by the appellant on various capital goods acquired on lease basis from other two entities involved in manufacturing activity is correctly taken or not. The Revenue s contention is that in terms of Rule 4(3) Cenvat credit in respect of capital goods shall be allowed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he manufacture of immovable supporting structures for capital goods. The dispute on the admissibility of Cenvat credit on steel items used for fabrication of supporting structures for capital goods has been settled by the Tribunal in several recent decisions. Some of which are mentioned below: Lafarge India Pvt. Limited V. CCE, Raipur, 2016 - TIOL-2875-CESTAT-DEL. Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Limited V. CCE, 2016 (341) ELT 372 (Tri.-Del.) SKS Ispat and Power Limited V. CCE, Raipur, 2016 - TIOL-2769-CESTAT-DEL. CCE, Salem V. Madars Aluminum Company, 2010(259) ELT 738 (Tri.-Chennai). 9. We have gone through the above decisions and we find that these are applicable to the facts of the present case. By follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
