2018 (5) TMI 1288

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ce cannot be considered as 'capital goods', whereas in the impugned order, the Commissioner has accepted that credit cannot be denied on the ground of immovability but still he has denied the credit by invoking the user test which was not an allegation in the SCN - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
Mr. S.S Garg, Judicial Member Mr. Raghavendra B. Hanjer, Advocate- For the Appellant Mrs. Kavitha Poduwal, Superintendent(AR)- For the Respondent Order per : S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order date 19.05.2017 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are holding .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order is not sustainable in law as the same has- been passed contrary to the binding judicial precedent, He further submitted that the show-cause notice had proposed to deny the credit only on the allegation that MS Angles, MS Ears, Channels, Coils, Joists etc. used in fabrication of various equipments/components/parts/accessories of bunkers, storage tanks, conveyor system, kiln, pollution control equipment which are embedded to earth so as to form immovable property and hence the same cannot be considered as 'capital goods' as defined under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. He further submitted that the impugned order having accepted that the credit cannot be denied on the ground of immovability, has denied the credit on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ioner of Central Excise, Bangalore - 11 Vs. M/s. SLR Steel Limited - 2012 (280) E.L.T. 176 (Kar.) c. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2005 (190) E.L.T. 301 (LB) 3.2. He also submitted that the issue of availment of credit on various iron and steel items used as components for capital goods or structural for support of capital goods is settled in favour of the appellant in the following decisions: a. Rangineni Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, C & ST, Mysore - Final Order No. 22599-22601/2017 dated 26.10.2017 b. Suguna Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, CE & ST, Hyderabad-I - 2016 (339) E.L.T. 119 (Tri. -Hyd.) c. Metrochem Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara-I - 2013 (292) E.L.T. 578 (Tr. -Ahmd.) d. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur - 2015 (330 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X