9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is clear that these items are part and parcel of various goods and has rightly been classified as inputs for fabrication of various capital goods as per Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which in turn are used in the manufacture of finished goods and therefore are eligible for cenvat credit. At the appellate stage also, in order to satisfy the Commissioner(Appeals) regarding the actual usage of these items, the appellant furnished the certificate of Chartered Engineer as required by the appellant authority but unfortunately the Commissioner(Appeals) has not given due weightage to the certificate of the Chartered Engineer where the Chartered Engineer has given usage of each and every item involved in the present case. This iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 019 April 2015 to Feb 2016 ₹ 9,54,704/- ₹ 95,470/- u/r 11A(15) E/21039/2019 April 2016 to June 2017 ₹ 3,28,117/- ₹ 32,811/- u/r 11A(15) For the sake of convenience, I take up the facts of appeal No.E/20972/2019. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Iron Ore Pellets, Sponge Iron Lumps and MA Billets falling under CETH 26 72 of CETA, 1985. During the course of verification of ER-1, it was noticed that the appellant has taken cenvat credit of ₹ 9,54,704/- on goods which are HR coils, MS plates, HT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that all the documents furnished by the appellant before the authorities clearly establishes that grate plates, wear plates, GI flats, MS plates etc. were used in the fabrication of capital goods or parts, components or accessories thereof. He further submitted that the said goods were used as inputs and/or capital goods such as components, spares and accessories and used for manufacture of capital goods. He also submitted that during the appeal proceedings before the learned Commissioner(Appeals), appellant was asked to furnish the Chartered Engineer certificate to the fact that the said goods were used and the appellant as per the direction of the learned Commissioner(Appeals) produced the certificate of the Chartered Engineer but the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . CCE, Lucknow Vs. Mankapur Chini Mills [2019(367) ELT 889 (All.)] 4.2. The learned counsel also referred to the decision of the Hon ble Apex court in the case of CCE, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills Ltd. [2010(255) ELT 481 (SC)] wherein it has been held that any equipment used for getting rid of effluents to be treated as accessory to specified capital goods and credit thereon admissible. He also relied upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mangalam Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I [2018(360) ELT 737 (Tri. LB)] wherein it was held that cement and steel items used for fabrication of support structure for smooth erection of the machines, to be considered as accessories of capital goods. Further items al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd every item involved in the present case. Further I find that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by various decisions of the Tribunal relied upon by the appellant cited supra. The various decisions relied upon by the appellant cited supra have held the eligibility of the assessee for cenvat credit on various goods which have been used for manufacture of the final product. Further I find that the Division Bench of this Bench in the case of Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE [2016(341) ELT 372] has held as under:- 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. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontemplated under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, hence will be entitled to the Cenvat credit. 7. This decision of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Hon ble High Court as reported in 2018(359) ELT 313. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mangalam Cements Ltd. cited supra has also held that the cement and steel items used for fabrication of support structure for smooth erection of the machines has to be considered as accessories of capital goods and cenvat credit cannot be denied. Therefore in view of my discussion above and keeping in view the ratio of various decisions and the Chartered Engineer certificate produced by the appellant, I am of the considered view that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
