9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, to be installed along with the conveyor system, so that the conveyor system can function with greater strength. In similar cases and in the case of Varalakshmi Sugars Ltd. v. CCE [ 2001 (8) TMI 183 - CEGAT, CHENNAI] wherein the corrugated sheets made of asbestos were used for covering the heat exchanger were held to be used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product. In the case of CCE v. J.K. Cement Works[ 1999 (11) TMI 454 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] , the M.S. Angles, Bars, and Rods and supporting structurals were found to be supporting clinker-loading arrangements and were considered to be parts of the plant and the benefit was allowed in the light of the ruling rendered in the case of New J.K. Cement Works v. CCE [ 1999 (8) TMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... structures which the appellants claim as parts of conveyor system while the Revenue contends that the same are in the nature of structurals or construction materials and used for structural purposes and not covered by the definition of Capital Goods under Rule 57Q. 2. We have heard both sides in the matter. 3. The learned Counsel displayed the photographs of the conveyor system and pointed out that the structures, which have been fixed as support to the conveyor system and the same has become part of the conveyor system and without the said structures, the conveyor system cannot function. In this regard, he relied on the following judgments wherein the structures which have been used for installation of plant have been considered to be part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the process of steel forging and hence held to be not Capital Goods and the credit was denied. In the case of CCE v. DSM Ltd. - [2003 (162) E.L.T. 987 (T) = 2003 (58) RLT 503 (CEGAT-Del.)] angles, joints and sheets were used for fabrication of structures, sheds, etc. and held to be not eligible for the benefit. 5. On a careful consideration, we find that the impugned structures have not been used for civil construction or for the purpose of putting up a shed as held in the cases of Sadhu Udyog v. CCE. and CCE v. DSM Ltd. cited supra, and the citations referred to by the learned SDR are, therefore, distinguishable. The appellants' case is that the item has become part and parcel of the conveyor system and they are parts of the convey ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re used in the manufacture of storage tanks and conveyance and hence it was held that credit cannot be denied on the item. All these ratios clearly apply to the facts of the case as structures have become parts of the conveyor system and it helps in the efficient functioning of the conveyor system. The structures on the conveyor system have been designed to function as part of conveyor systems and also to give support to the conveyor system. Therefore, in the light of the citations produced by the learned Counsel and as discussed supra, the denial of credit on these structures, which are used as parts of conveyor system are not justified. Respectfully following the ratio, the said impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
