9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d connected at site using steel structures. The items which are used for holding and connecting the various parts of the pollution control equipment and other machines which is eligible for credit. CENVAT Credit on Cable tray - HELD THAT:- The cable trays are used for holding electrical cables of the machines and are accessories of capital goods. The credit is eligible. CENVAT Credit on sub-station electrical equipment - HELD THAT:- Certain items have been used for sub-station electrical equipment which is not eligible for credit. CENVAT Credit on Earthing Material - HELD THAT:- This is also used for electrical protecting wiring and therefore not eligible for credit. CENVAT Credit on Galvanised Structure - HELD THAT:- The end use of this item is for electrical equipment in main receiving sub-station. The said invoice is not eligible for credit. CENVAT Credit on electrical power and main receiving sub-stations - HELD THAT:- These items are not eligible for credit. CENVAT Credit on GI earthing wire - HELD THAT:- The items in the nature of GI earthing wire used for electrical protective earthing which is not eligible for credit. CENVAT Credit on DCS System Spares - HELD THAT:- The des ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... REME COURT] has held that there has to be wilful suppression with intent to evade payment of duty. On the totality of facts, and following the decision, the demand raised invoking the extended period cannot sustain. Appeal allowed in part. - HON BLE MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C. S. , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) And HON BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) For the Appellant : Mr. Vishal Sundar , Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. M. Selvakumar , Authorised Representative ORDER Order : - Per Ms. SULEKHA BEEVI C. S. Brief facts are that the appellants are engaged in manufacturing Hot Rolled and Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Products, Hot Rolled Carbon Sheets, Coils, Plates and Stainless-Steel Coin Blanks. They are a public sector undertaking and are registered with the Central Excise Department. During the course of verification of the records of the appellant, it was noted that the appellant has wrongly availed CENVAT Credit under the category of capital goods on items like MS Sheets, Plates, Angles, Technological Structures, foundation bolts and nuts and railway sleepers falling under Chapter 72, 73 68. As per Rule 2(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, capital goods are defined as under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quired for setting up of the additional steel meting shop were fabricated and brought inside the appellant s factory for erection. The impugned items in the nature of MS Angels, Sheets were used for structural support of capital goods. Without such structural support, the capital goods in the nature of storage tank, annealing and pickling line machines cannot be installed or put to use. The allegation of the Department is that the items do not fall under the definition of capital goods as per Rule 2(a) of CCR, 2004. These items are used as parts, spares, accessories and supports of capital goods. Without such parts, accessories and supports, the capital goods cannot be put to use and therefore have to be considered as capital goods. 2.2 It is submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has denied the credit on storage bunker fabricated by using the impugned items. The Adjudicating Authority has taken the view that storage bunker is only a part of the production line for temporarily holding the raw materials in the process of production and therefore cannot be said to be a storage tank. This view adopted by the Adjudicating Authority is erroneous, for the reason that such storage bunk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise [2015 (319) ELT 247 (SC)] wherein it was held that credit is eligible on the railway track installed for transportation of hot metal in ladle from blast furnace to pig casting. 2.4 The decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore Vs. Jawahar Mills Ltd. [2001 (132) ELT 3 (SC)] as well as the decision in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Ors. [2017 (355) ELT 373 (Mad.)] was also taken assistance by the Ld. Counsel to argue that applying the user test, the impugned items would be eligible for credit, as these are used for the purpose of installing and effectively using the capital goods. 2.5 The Ld. Counsel argued on the ground of limitation also. It is submitted that the Show Cause Notice dated 22.05.2013 has been issued for the period May 2008 to January 2013 alleging suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. The appellant is a public sector undertaking and the allegation that the appellant has suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of duty is baseless. The entire figures for raising the demand has been taken from the records maintained by the appellant. Further, the Chartered Engi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted the end use of such structural items to contend that these are part of capital goods, it can be seen that these are mere structural items used in the assembly line and do not form part of any machine by themselves. Some of the structural items are only for the purpose of support to capital goods and do not form part of capital goods. It is submitted that the Original Authority has correctly disallowed the credit and confirmed the demand of duty. It is prayed that the appeal may be dismissed. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue to be decided is whether the appellant is eligible for credit of structural items in the nature of MS Angles, MS Plates, Sheets, etc. At the outset, it has to be stated that the appellant has furnished a Certificate issued by Chartered Engineer who has examined and verified each and every invoice and given the end use of the structural items (MS Angles, Sheets) used by the appellant. The Department has not adduced any evidence to discredit this Certificate. Again, thought the credit has been availed under the category of capital goods, it does not prohibit assessee from claiming credit under the category of inputs, if the impugned items fit into the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and accessories of capital goods. The Ld. Counsel has drawn our attention to the Certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer dated 09.12.2014. The said Engineer has verified all impugned items mentioned in the Annexure to the Show Cause Notice dated 22.05.2013 on which credit has been denied. The Annexure to the Certificate gives the list with description of each item and end use. It is opined by the Chartered Engineer that the items such are sheets, angles, channels, etc., have been received and erected for use of machines as parts, components, accessories and technological structures of machinery of steel melting shop. We have perused the Annexure to the Certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer. Most of the items show that the end use is parts, components, accessories or for supporting the capital goods for putting the capital goods into effective use. 10. However, certain items have been used for sub-station electrical equipment which in our view is not eligible for credit. For this reason, Sl.No. 50 to 60 in the Annexure to the Chartered Engineer Certificate is not eligible for credit. At Sl.No. 99 relating to invoice No. 21 dated 01.08.2009, the name of capital good is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Rajasthan Spinning Weaving Mills Ltd. (supra) and held that when steel plates, MS Channels, Sheets are used for fabrication of capital goods or for putting the capital goods into effective use, the credit is eligible. Similar view was taken in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars Vs. Ors Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2017 (7) TMI 524 (Mad.)] and in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli Vs. India Cements Ltd. [2014 (305) ELT 558 (Mad.)]. On applying the user test, we find that the credit is eligible except for the specifically mentioned items in the paragraphs 10 and 11 which we have held against appellant. 13. The Ld. Counsel has argued on the ground of limitation. The Show Cause Notice dated 22.05.2013 has been issued for the period May 2008 to January 2013. It is submitted that the period from May 2008 to April 2012 is barred by limitation. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the entire demand has been raised on the basis of the documents / accounts maintained by the appellant, as reflected in para 15 of the Show Cause Notice. For this reason, the allegation that appellant has suppressed facts is without any basis. The appellant is a Public Sector Un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
