9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Tax, Bhubaneswar-I. The period of dispute is from March, 2005 to June, 2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Ferro Chrome, Stainless Steel (slab). The appellant is using the input materials for making structurals, platforms etc. to support the machinery etc. in the factory and for this they availed the cenvat credit. The department has denied the same. Being aggrieved the appellants have filed the present case. 3. Heard both sides and perused the appeal record. 4. After hearing both sides it appears that cenvat credit on the cement and TMT bar in lying foundation is applicable as per the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in the case of Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Final Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pair and maintenance purpose were also held to be cenvatable. Similarly, in the case of Hindustan Zinc Limited v. Union of India, 2008 (228) E.L.T. 517 (Raj.), the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan allowed the Cenvat credit on the welding electrodes. By following said decision, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the credit on welding electrodes considering them as Inputs . 13. Now we turn to the question, whether credit is admissible on various structural steel items, such as, MS Angles, Sections, Channels, TMT Bar, etc., which have been used by the appellants in the fabrication of support structures on which various capital goods are placed The same stands denied by the lower authority. The learned DR has sought disallowance of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing set. The credit stands allowed in the light of Rule 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has referred to the user test evolved by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd., 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), which is required to be satisfied to find out whether or not particular goods could be said to be capital goods. When we apply the user test to the case in hand, we find that the structural steel items have been used for the fabrication of support structures for capital goods. The appellants have argued that the various capital goods, such as, kiln, material handling conveyor system, furnace, etc. cannot be suspended in mid-air. They will need to be suitably support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
