2017 (6) TMI 966

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ellant.
Shri SS Garg, Judicial Member Shri T.V. Ajayan, Advocate, For the Appellant Shri K.T. Pakshirajan, Asst. Commissioner(AR), For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dt.30.04.2012 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the commissioner(Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that appellants are manufacturers of petroleum products falling under Chapter 27 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETA) and were availing CENVAT credit on inputs / capital goods and input services under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR, 2004). During the course of the audit of the appellants, it was noticed that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot be used for supporting any structure. He further submitted that the angles, channels and plates in the present case are essential spares, accessories and components of the main plant and machinery and the same is covered by the definition of capital goods. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court. in the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills Vs. CCE, Delhi-III [2011(270) ELT 465 (SC)] which has no bearing on the appellant's case in question as the facts of the case are entirely different. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following decisions:- a. India Cements Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai [2015(321) ELT 209 (Mad.)] b. India Cements Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai [201 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s: a. CCE, Chennai-I Vs. Chennai Petroleum Corpn. Ltd [2007(211) ELT 193 (SC)] b. MRPL Vs. CCE&ST, Mangalore [2015(40) STR 1093 (Tri. Bang.)] c. IOC Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2013(291) ELT 449 (Tri. Ahmd.)] d ONGC Vs. CCE, Vadodara [1995(79) ELT 117 (Tri.)] 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering submissions of both sides and considering the materials on records and the judgments cited supra, I find that in the present case the items in dispute such as plates, channels, angles falling under Chapter 72 of CETA have been used as components, spares and accessories of the capital goods as has been stated in the documents submitted by the appellant. Further I also find that in the imp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X