9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], where it was held that the appellant is entitled to CENVAT Credit of duty paid on steel and cement used in the manufacture of storage tank and the pollution control equipment - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjudicating authority vide order-in-original dated 3.11.2008 confirmed the demand along with appropriate interest and imposition of equal penalty under Rule 15. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who upheld the order-in-original. Heard both the parties and perused the records. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed contrary to the statutory provisions and contrary to the binding judicial precedents. He further submitted that the appellants have used these items in the construction of storage tank, pollution control equipment etc. He further submitted that the issue involved in the present case is no more res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the factory of the manufacturer of the final products, but does not include any equipment of appliance used in an office; or (2) For providing output service. 7. A perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it very clear though storage tanks may be immovable property and the pollution control equipment are included within the definition of capital goods , input as defined in Rule 2(k) makes it clear that input includes in goods used in the manufacture of capital goods which are further used in the factory of the manufacturer. Therefore, the input is not necessarily to be used in the manufacture of final product. By virtue of explanation 2 - goods used in the manufacturer of capital goods which are further used in the factory of the manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e duty paid could be utilized as a cenvat credit by the assessee notwithstanding the fact that the storage tank is an immovable property. Therefore, the appellate authority committed a serious error firstly in holding that the storage tank is an immovable property and secondly, on the ground that it cannot be bought and sold in the market, the criteria which is totally unwarranted under the circumstances. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in setting-aside the said order and holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit." Further in the case of Bajaj Hindustan Ltd Vs CCE Lucknow [2013(294)ELT 590 (Tri-Del)] the Tribunal in paragraph 6 at page 592 following the decision in SLR Steels case and Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
