2018 (2) TMI 275 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – CENVAT credit – MS structures, HR plates, angles, channels, beams, etc – Held that: – the appeal filed by the Revenue is now contradicting the factual matrix of the utilization of these items in the manufacture of 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 – First appellate authority has held that Since the said Rolling Mill Machinery & its Accessories are classifiable under Chapter 82, 84, 85 and 90 of CETA, 1985 and covered under Rule 2(a) as Capital goods, consequently the goods used in the manufacture of said Rolling Mill Machinery are also squarely covered under the definition of Capital Goods in terms of Rule 2(a)(A)(i) and (iii) of the CCR, 2004 – credit allowed – appeal dismissed – decided against Revenue. – E/87330/2017 – A/91790/2017 – Dated:- 20-12-2017 – Shri M V
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
h are used in the manufacture of excisable goods, set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. To come to such a conclusion, he relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in various cases. 4. Learned Authorised Representative submits that these items are used by the respondent for construction of supporting structures for which CENVAT credit is not available. He would submit that similar issues have been remanded back to the lower authorities by this Tribunal. He also relies upon the provisions of Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 which excludes items for construction activity. 5. In my considered view the appeal filed by the Revenue is now contradicting the factual matrix of the utilization of these items in the manufacture of 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 c
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
g of Rolling Mill Machinery & its Accessories and installed the same inside their factory for manufacture of excisable goods. There is no dispute that the said Rolling Mill Machinery & Accessories were installed and they are being used in the manufacture of finished excisable goods i.e. M.S. Flat and Bars on which appellant is paying Central Excise Duty. The said goods were essential for the manufacture of Rolling Mill Machinery and its accessories, which in turn was essential for manufacture of excisable goods. Since the said Rolling Mill Machinery & its Accessories are classifiable under Chapter 82, 84, 85 and 90 of CETA, 1985 and covered under Rule 2(a) as Capital goods, consequently the goods used in the manufacture of said Rolling Mill Machinery 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. Commiss
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
eligible for Cenvat credit as storage tank is specified as capital goods under Rule 2(a)(A)(vii) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. [para 5] iii) Suguna Metals Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Hyderabad-I 2016 (339) ELT 119 (Tri. – Hyd.) Cenvat credit – Capital goods – MS Plates, Channels, Joists, Beams, Angles, HR Coils, etc. used in fabrication of capital goods – Use of impugned goods in fabricating capital goods such as ladle, con-cast unit, oil tank, chimney, EOT crane and pollution control equipment established through certificate of Chartered Engineer as well as photographs – Issue of credit on these items no longer res integra in view of decisions in 2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.); 2012 (280) E.L.T. 176 (Kar.) and 2015 (321) E.L.T. 209 (Mad.) – Credit available – Rule 2(a)(A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. [paras 4, 5]" 6. I find that the first appellate authority was correct in coming to such a conclusion as reproduced herein above and I hold
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =