9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant. Shri K.S. Reddy, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - This appeal arises from Order in Appeal No. 322/05-CE dated 9-12-05 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the OIO No. 4/2005 (ADC) dated 31-8-05 wherein demand of Rs. 32,73,904/- along with interest and penalties has been confirmed for wrongly availing Cenvat credit in respect of 111 numbers of disputed items. 26 Nos. of items were used for construction of steel structure of the factory shed. In the appeal memo in para 14 of the facts of the appeal, the appellants conceded that an amount of Rs. 4,70,801/- in respect of items which are used for construction of steel structure of factory shed is not contested by them. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case as reported in 2005 (187) E.L.T. 145 wherein it was held that "the term capital goods is not an inclusive definition and an item can be treated as capital goods under Cenvat Credit Rules only if it is satisfied that the goods fall under one of the specified chapters or headings of the tariff or it is spare parts, components, accessories or that it falls under one of the specified item. He has held that in the present case, general use of structural items classifiable under Chapter 72 76 are definitely not identifiable as parts accessories and components of capital goods falling under Chapter 82, 84, 85, 90 heading 6802 and sub-heading 6801.10" and with above observations he has upheld the denial of credit and payment of the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. v. CCE - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 92 (7) Mukand Ltd. v. CCE - 2005 (182) E.L.T. 61 (8) Lloyd Metals Engg Ltd. v. CCE - 2002 (150) E.L.T. 638 (9) Travancore Cochin Chemical Ltd. v. CCE - 2002 (147) E.L.T 992 (10) Siel Sugars v. CCE - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 54 (11) CCE v. Seksdria Biswan Sugar Factory Ltd. - 2005 (187) E.L.T. 49 (12) Divi's Laboratories Ltd. v. CCE - 2006 (196) E.L.T. 285 (T) = (73) RLT 255 (13) Ispat Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 2006 (195) E.L.T. 164 (14) CCE v. India Cement Ltd. [2004 (175) E.L.T. 476 (Tribunal) = 2004 (64) RLT 63] (15) Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (64) RLT 732 (3) In the light of the above decisions, the appellants are rightly entitled for modvat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OIA. 4. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The impugned items are as follows: (i) M.S. angles (ii) MS plates (iii) Channels (iv) rods (v) beams (vi) beams (vii) HR plates (viii) HR coils (ix) AI coils The appellants availed Cenvat credit on them for the period from June 2004 to December 04. The above items are used by the appellants in the fabrication of the following sugar manufacturing equipment and structures: (i) juice clarifier (ii) bagasse handling system (iii) various tanks (iv) sugar elevators (v) sugar hoppers (vi) cane carrier (vii) boiler (viii) bagasse carrier (ix) power house panel board structure The appellants have cited large number of case laws in their supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pugned items are inputs in that case also, the benefit of Modvat credit should have been extended. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the impugned order. Therefore, we allow the appeal with consequential relief. 2. Learned counsel points out from the impugned order, that the Commissioner did not grant the benefit on the ground that the items were classified under Chapter 72 which deals with general structure items. He noted that they are not in the nature of specifically manufactured structures for housing machinery such as storage tank, material handling equipments etc. He submits that they had produced enormous evidence to show that the items had gone into the manufacture of sugar manufacturing equipment and structur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
