9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nents, spares and accessories should pertain. Thus, the definition of capital goods squarely covers components, spares and accessories of the goods falling under chapter 82, 84, 85, 90, heading number 68.05 grinding wheels and the like, and parts thereof falling under heading 6804 of the First schedule to the Excise Tariff Act and pollution control equipment. It is evident that in the absence of any prescribed headings to which such components, spares and accessories should pertain, the claim of the appellant that the impugned goods are covered under the definition of capital goods merits acceptance. This tribunal finds that the adjudicating authority has erred in rendering a finding that the appellants had raised contradictory claims. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same should also be considered as capital goods for availment of Cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid thereon.
The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule stated unequivocally that components, spares and accessories of goods falling under chapter 82, 84 and 85 will be treated as capital goods, and that the credit availed is in order. 3. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority held that the goods on which the appellant had taken credit are not 'capital goods' as per chapter 82,84,85 and 90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The adjudicating authority also rendered a finding that the appellant had first claimed these items as capital goods and then have now stated that the components, spares and accessories and that thus the appellant has made contrary contentions. Therefore, the adjudicating authority disallowed the cenvat credit and ordered for reversal /recovery of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us CC, Jaipur (1), 2018 (360) ELT 737 (Tri LB), CCE &ST Vs. India Cements Ltd., 2014 (310) ELT 636 (Mad.) and India Cements Vs CESTAT, Chennai 2015 (321) ELT 209 (Mad.). 5. Ld. AR. Shri. N. Satyanarayan appeared on behalf of the respondent and apart from reiterating the findings of the appellate authority, also points out that the said goods will not, in the alternate, fall under the definition of inputs as provided in Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 6. Heard both sides and perused the records. The sole issue to be decided is whether the cenvat credit taken on the impugned goods used by the appellant in their factory would fall under the definition of capital goods as contented by the appellant. 7. The SCN at para 3, provides the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and accessories of the goods falling under chapter 82, 84, 85, 90, heading number 68.05 grinding wheels and the like, and parts thereof falling under heading 6804 of the First schedule to the Excise Tariff Act and pollution control equipment. It is evident that in the absence of any prescribed headings to which such components, spares and accessories should pertain, the claim of the appellant that the impugned goods are covered under the definition of capital goods merits acceptance. 9. This tribunal finds that the adjudicating authority has erred in rendering a finding that the appellants had raised contradictory claims. The adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate that the appellants had only claimed that the components, spares ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries" in the definition of capital goods is not restricted to the components, spares and accessories falling under Chapter 82, 84, 85 or 90 of CETA, 1985 alone but covers all spares, components and accessories of specified goods irrespective of their classification under any chapter and is thus not chapter specific. The reliance placed by the Appellant on the decision in CCE &ST Vs. India Cements Ltd., 2014 (310) ELT 636 (Mad.) and India Cements Vs CESTAT, Chennai 2015 (321) ELT 209 (Mad.) and Mangalam cement limited versus CC, Jaipur (1), 2018 (360) ELT 737 (Tri LB), is apposite. The Larger Bench of this Tribunal has in the aforementioned decision in Mangalam Cement, after considering the definition of capital goods held as under: " 5. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
