9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive. ORDER PER SHRI ASHOK JINDAL The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned order; accordingly they are in appeal before us. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant - M/s. Tata Steel Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Tata') is engaged in the production of sized iron ore concentrate and iron ore fines. In order to cater to increased iron ore needs of the Jamshedpur plant, the appellant commissioned a new material handling system with wagon loading facilities at their Noamundi Iron Ore Mines to effectively handle the iron ore and load the same on wagon at railway siding for onward transportation of appellant's integrated steel plant at Jamshedpur. For commissioning such new material handling system, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led by Tata. 3. In the month of October 2010, the Revenue visited Tata's premises and recorded certain statements relating to the said activity and thereafter, issued a Show Cause Notice proposing to deny CENVAT Credit on capital goods supplied by L&T under the purchase order. The allegation for denial of such credit was that L&T had opted for payment of service tax on all the contracts under 'works contract service' wherein L&T is restricted from availing CENVAT Credit on the 'inputs' used in works contract service. Therefore, it was alleged that the capital goods on which the Tata had availed CENVAT Credit becomes the inputs for L&T, who is restricted from availing CENVAT Credit and thus, Tata is not permitted to avail CENVAT Credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings were set aside by the Courts and Tribunals to allow CENVAT Credit to the assessees. 5.2. It is further submitted that the extended period of limitation is not invokable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue supported the impugned order. 7. Heard the parties and considered their submissions. 7.1. We find that the issue to be decided is whether appellants are entitled to take CENVAT Credit on capital goods or not. 8. It is observed that the capital goods have been procured by the appellant/Tata under a separate contract, on payment, which has become the property of the appellant and the same has been handed over by Tata to L&T for installation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd were received by the assessee in their factory even where the purchases are made by WIL. Further, the assessee acquired the components of the generating set, not for use in the manufacture of generating set as a final product but to generate electricity which was required for the manufacture of yarn etc. which was their final product. Needless to mention that the parts, spares and accessories are covered under the definition of capital goods under Rule 57-Q." 8.3. In the case of Commissioner of C.Ex., Jalandhar v. International Tractor Ltd. [2007 (220) E.L.T. 155 (Tri. - Del.)], the Tribunal has taken the view, as under: - "4. The undisputed facts are that the respondents got manufactured a chassis painting plant through M/s. Haden E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
