9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 623X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period April 2010 to December 2014 amounting to Rs.178,68,90,728/- on various items such as down comers, tray decks, separator with lifting beam (frame) assembly, catalyst outlet screen, centrifugal pumps, tools and tackles, regenerator internal steam, gas compressor, tandem dry gas seal, vertical storage container of ST rotor, rotor assembly, turbine assembly, control valve, industrial valves, pipes, tubes, pipe fittings, vales, flanges, heat exchanger, earthing control cables, flame proof lighting, foundation template etc. which are used for fabrication / erection of various plants as a part of the Phase III expansion project on lumpsum key basis. Alleging that the said goods do not satisfy the definition of capital goods under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, show-cause notice was issued to them on 06/05/2015 for recovery of the said credit along with interest and penalty. On adjudication, the demand was reduced by Rs.2,92,23,646/- being part of the earlier order dt. 03/02/2014 and Rs.173,76,67,082/- confirmed with interest and penalty. Hence, the present appeal. 3.1. At the outset, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the cenvat credit av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principles of law held in a catena of decisions. In support, they have referred to the following judgments:- a. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2021(46) GSTL 61 (Tri. Chandigarh)] b. CCE Vs. Pipavav Shipyard Ltd. [2023 4 Centax 246 (Guj.)] c. CCE Vs. Rajaram Bapu Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [2019(365) ELT 14 (Bom.)] d. Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2015(330) ELT 711 (Tri. Del.)] e. Olam Agro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2019-TIOL-2229-CESTAT-DELH] f. Renuka sugars Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2017-TIOL-2260-CESTAT-BANG] 3.3. He has further submitted that in their own case, this Tribunal vide Final Order No.20701/2023 dt. 06/07/2023 allowed cenvat credit availed on steel sheets etc. used for installation of storage tanks in the refinery which was also disallowed on the same ground by the adjudicating authority observing that storage tank is an immovable property; hence credit on the goods consumed in the fabrication of storage tank is inadmissible. Even though the present show-cause notice included the said demand, however, the impugned order reduced the demand on the ground that separate order has been passed in this regard which now stan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f different individual units such as cooling tower, water treatment plant etc. as a part of the Phase-III expansion of capacity, they have received various capital items which were used in the factory by the contractors for erection, installation of sub-plants. The items have been received in fully finished condition and falling under Chapter 84, 85 and 90 and pipes and pipe fittings; hence eligible to credit as capital goods under Rule 2(a) of CCR, 2004. The learned Commissioner in the impugned order denying the cenvat credit reasoned that since the capital items received by the appellant used by the contractors in installation, erection and fabrication of various plants, sub-plants etc. in the factory premises, results into immovable property; hence not admissible to credit. Also in denying the credit to the appellant, learned Commissioner heavily relied on the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra). 8. We find that the ratio of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in Vandana Global Ltd. case has been set aside by the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court following the judgments of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Ports & S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een taken are covered by the Chapters 84, 85 & 90 of the Central Excise Tariff or are the item specifically mentioned in Rule 2(a) and accordingly are covered by the definition of the 'capital goods' as given in Rule 2(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The Department seeks to deny the [Cenvat] credit on the two grounds, namely :- (a) at the time of receipt of capital goods in the refinery where the same had been installed for setting up Nephtha Cracker Plant, the appellant were not owner of the goods, as the same had been brought by their contractor for setting up the plant; and (b) the goods after being installed had becomes fixed to earth structure which is not excisable and hence the Cenvat credit of Central Excise duty involved these goods would not be available to the appellant. 7. In term of the definition of 'capital goods' as given in Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the capital goods are those goods which are specified in this Rule and which (except for office equipment or appliance) are used in the factory of the manufacture of the final products or for providing of output service. Thus any items which is covered by the list of the items mentioned in Rule 2(a) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
