2017 (8) TMI 263

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eligible to CENVAT credit - similar issue decided in the case of M/s. Singhal Enterprises Private Limited Versus The Commissioner Customs & Central Excise, Raipur [2016 (9) TMI 682 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that applying the “User Test” 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 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Dr. D. M. Misra, Member (Judicial) For Appellant (s): Shri W. Christian, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri Sameer Chitkara, Authorised Representative ORDER Per: Dr. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ital goods and hence credit is also admissible in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of India Cements Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai - 2015 (321) ELT 209 (Mad.) and a recent decisions of Principal Bench At Delhi in the case of Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Raipur - 2016 (34) ELT 372 (Tri- Del.) and SKS Ispat And Power Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur - 2016-TIOL-2769-CESTAT-DEL . 4. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 5. Heard both sides and peruse the records. I find that the dispute centres around the eligibility of CENVAT credit on M.S. Channels, Plates, Double Twin Rider and some various items which were .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... said decision of the Larger Bench was considered by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd., 2015 (04) LCX0197 = 2015 (39) S.T.R. 726 (Guj.), wherein it was observed that the amendment made on 7-7-2009 cannot be held to be clarificatory and as such would be applicable only prospectively. 15. We find that the controversy can be laid to rest by making a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., 2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered an identical issue of steel plates and MS channels used in the fabrication of chimney for diesel generating set. The credit stands allowed in the light .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X