9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - decided in favor of appellant. - E/161/2012-SM & E/424/2012-SM - A/53601-53602/2017-SM[BR] - Dated:- 29-5-2017 - Mr. Ashok K. Arya, (Technical Member) Shri Abhishek Jajoo, Advocate for the appellant Shri Sanjay Jain, AR for the respondent ORDER Per: Ashok K. Arya 1. M/s Crest Steel and Power Pvt. Ltd has filed an appeal against Order in Appeal no.34/2011 dated 19/10/2011 where-under Cenvat credit on steel structures used in the manufacturing of supporting structurals has been denied. The period involved is from August, 2007 to October, 2009. 1.1. The revenue has also filed cross appeal against the same Order in Appeal contesting the dropping of the demand based on non-application of extended period claus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cement Manufacturing Plant. It is noted that Fly Ash handlish system is a pollution control equipment and particularly mentioned in Rule 2(a)(A)(ii) of Rules, 2004. The allegation in the above show cause notice that the Chapter Heading of these items were not covered under Rule 2(a) of the Rules, 2004, is not sustainable, in respect of pollution control equipments because the rule does not specify the tariff headings under which pollution control equipment should be falling. The appellant established that these items were used for erection of capital goods namely Dry Process Cement Manufacturing Plant, which falls under Chapter 84, as mentioned in Serial No. (i) of Rules 2(a)(A). Thus, the items in question are covered in serial No. (iii) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that this Court had earlier considered the case of the assessee in two similar cases of the previous assessment years in C.M.A. No.1301 of 2005, dated 31-12-2012, where a reference was made to an order passed earlier in respect of the very same assessee. While dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows : 8. Even though learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the judgment in the assessee s own case reported in AIT- 2011-358-HC (The Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. India Cements Limited) had been appealed against, as of today, there are no details; in any event, the fact herein is that the Revenue does not controvert the facts found by the Assistant Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the decision reported in 2010 (255) E.L.T . 481 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills Ltd.) , the Apex Court held that in view of the findings rendered by the Tribunal that the machineries were complete and having regard to the meaning of the expression components/ parts , with reference to the particular industry in question, the Apex Court rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. 11. Thus going by the factual finding, which are distinguishable from the facts found by the authorities below in the case on hand, we have no hesitation in rejecting the Revenue s appeal, thereby confirming the order of the Tribunal. 12. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Revenue pointed out tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving Mills Ltd. ) and the earlier decisions of this Court in C.M.A. No. 3101 of 2005, dated 13-12-2012 and C.M.A. No.1265 of 2014, dated 10-7-2014, we are inclined to allow the appeal, thereby set aside the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, this civil miscellaneous appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2011 is closed. 3.1. The Tribunal in the case of Singhal Enterprise Pvt. Ltd Vs CCE Raipur - 2016 (341) ELT 372 (Tri- Delhi) has also held that structural steel items used in fabrication of support structurals are to be treated as parts of capital goods and are eligible for claiming Cenvat credit by the manufacturers. The Tribunal in the said decision has observed as under: 15. We find that the controver ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to the facts in hand, we have no hesitation in holding that the structural items used in the fabrication of support structures would fall within the ambit of Capital Goods‟ as contemplated under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, hence will be entitled to the Cenvat credit. 3.2. In the light of above discussions and following Hon ble Madras High Court and Tribunal s decisions (supra), the subject input items are held to be eligible for claiming Cenvat credit. 4. In the result, the impugned order is modified to above effect and appeal filed by M/s Crest Ltd Power Pvt. Ltd is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected as without merits. [Order dictated and Pronounced in the open court] - - TaxTMI - TMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
