Commissioner of CGST And Central Excise Versus Industrial Steel Rolling Mills
Central Excise
2018 (2) TMI 275 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 20-12-2017
E/87330/2017 – A/91790/2017
Central Excise
Shri M V Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
For the Appellant : Mr. A.B. Kulgod
For the Respondent : None
ORDER
This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No.SK/111/TH-I/2017 dated 12/06/2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai I.
2. Heard the learned Authorised Representative. The respondent is unrepresented despite notice. Since the matter lies in a narrow compass I take up the appeals in the absence of any representation from the respondent.
3. The issue that falls for consideration in this case is regarding eligibility to avail CENVAT credit on MS structures, HR plates, angles, channels, beams, etc. The adjudicating authority has come to the conclusion that CENVAT credit availed by the respondent herein is incorrect and
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rolling mill machinery and its accessories as, I find from the grounds of appeal the Revenue is not disputing the certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer which was produced before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and also followed the law as laid down by the Tribunal. The finding of the first appellate authority are very detailed in nature which I would like to reproduce:
“7. The Certificate dated 17/11/2016 issued by M/s Shree Technical Consultants & Valuers, the Chartered Engineers, certifies that the appellant had purchased the disputed goods and produced/fabricated the Rolling Mill Machinery &its accessories, in their factory and that the said machinery are installed in factory as Capital Goods for manufacturing of finished goods. From scrutiny of various photographs submitted in the appeal docket, I observe that these inputs were used in the manufacture of machinery which was used in the factory.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
achinery are also squarely covered under the definition of Capital Goods in terms of Rule 2(a)(A)(i) and (iii) of the CCR, 2004.
9. In this regard I draw support from the following decisions –
i) LSR Speciality Oils Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Belapur [2014 (313) ELT 426 (Tri. – Mumbai)]
Cenvat credit – MS angle and HR sheet – Use of, for fabrication of storage tanks – Entitlement to Cenvat credit on the MS angle and HR sheet – HELD : Storage tanks have been specified as capital goods and inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods are eligible for Cenvat credit – Thus, Cenvat credit cannot be denied on the MS angle and HR sheet – Rules 2(a) and 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. [para 6] Appeal allowed.
ii) Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v Commissioner Of Central Excise, Meerut-II 2016 (344) ELT 285 (Tri. – All.)
Cenvat credit – Capital goods – AC corrugated sheet – Used in boiler – Without its use, it was not possible to generate steam in boiler, which was essential
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =