2012 (4) TMI 784

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) Shri L.P. Asthana, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri B.L. Soni, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER The Appellant is a manufacturer of sponge iron. The appellant had taken cenvat credit during May 2009 on "Tipper chassis", an accessory of Motor Vehicles, used by them within the factory. Since the definition of capital goods did not cover goods falling under Chapter 87, the Revenue demanded reversa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tory of the appellant after that date and cannot be extended to capital goods received prior to that date and therefore, there is no merit in the case of the appellant. 4. Considered arguments of both sides. I find that the claim of the appellant was that this equipment is used in relation to manufacture and this equipment should be considered as inputs used in the manufacture of sponge iron .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... which continue to be present in the factory after clearance of final product as an asset used in the factory for manufacture of final products. Therefore, an equipment like 'tipper chassis' which is in the nature of a capital asset cannot be brought within the meaning of 'inputs'. Since the list of items of capital goods on which credit can be allowed is restricted for goods falling under chapters .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X