2018 (9) TMI 727

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aside along with the interest and penalty - reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S LLOYDS METALS & ENGG LTD [2014 (8) TMI 913 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where credit was allowed on MS bars, beams etc., used for setting up kiln, cooler and chimney etc., in factory - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri T. Jagpathi Rao, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Dass Thavanam, Superintendent (AR) for the Revenue. ORDER [Order per: P. Venkata Subba Rao] This appeal is filed against Order-in-Original No. 16/2010 C. Ex dated 30.06.2010. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The appellant herein manufacture .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... capital goods. They further stated that CENVAT credit taken on these items which are used in the construction of civil contract rendered by them. After following due process of law, Learned Commissioner issued the Order-in-Original denying credit on the ground that the components, machinery, equipment, pipes and tubes etc., for their assembling on foundation/ civil structures, as the site cannot be considered as excisable goods and therefore such plants are basically systems comprising various components and cannot be considered as excisable goods. Since the plant itself is not a excisable goods the inputs used in manufacture/maintenance this plant cannot be considered as inputs in terms of Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re of the plant/parts, thereof which are fixed to the ground and cannot be goods at all if there not goods if cannot be capital goods, and therefore the input goods manufacture of capital goods. 6. We have examined the contentions on both sides. It is not disputed that the appellant used inputs for manufacture/maintenance of various components of the parts. It is also been recorded in para 16 of the Order-in-Original itself that whatever material was used in the construction of civil structures has already been reversed by the appellant. The only question which remains to be decided is whether the appellant is entitled to CENVAT credit on inputs used by them in manufacture or maintenance of the parts and equipments of the cement plant. We .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X