2018 (3) TMI 692 – CESTAT AHMEDABAD – TMI – CENVAT credit – HR Coil, MS Pipe, SS Tube, Joints etc., used for fabrication of capital goods and its supporting structures – Held that: – the issue is addressed by Principal Bench at Delhi in the case of Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Raipur [2016 (9) TMI 682 – CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that applying the “User Test” to the facts in hand, we have no hesitation in holding that the structural items used in the fabrication of support structures would fall within the ambit of ‘Capital Goods’ as contemplated under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, hence will be entitled to the Cenvat Credit.
–
Even though in principle, the appellant are eligible to credit, however, the use of the said item is not supported by evidence, hence, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification of the said facts – appeal allowed by way of remand. – Appeal No. E/10272-10273/2018 – ORD
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
appeals. 3. The Ld. Advocate Shri R. V. Shetty for the appellant submits that all these items were used for fabrication of the capital goods and supporting structures of capital goods, hence, eligible to credit as per the definition of capital goods/input prescribed under Rule 2 (a)/2(k) of CCR, 2004. He submits that the credit is admissible in view of the judgement of the Principal Bench At Delhi in the case of Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Raipur 2016 (34) ELT 372 (Tri- Del.). 4. The Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld Commissioner (Appeals). 5. I find that the issue is addressed by Principal Bench at Delhi in the case of Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Raipur 2016 (34) ELT 372 (Tri- Del.). It is observed as follows: 13. Now we turn to the question, whether credit is admissible on various structural steel items, such as, MS Angles, Sections, Channels, TMT Bar, etc.,
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
that the said decision of the Larger Bench was considered by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd., 2015 (04) LCX0197 = 2015 (39) S.T.R. 726 (Guj.), wherein it was observed that the amendment made on 7-7-2009 cannot be held to be clarificatory and as such would be applicable only prospectively. 15. We find that the controversy can be laid to rest by making a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., 2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.), wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court has considered an identical issue of steel plates and MS channels used in the fabrication of chimney for diesel generating set. The credit stands allowed in the light of Rule 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has referred to the user test evolved by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd., 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), whi
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =