Shri Chalthan Vibhag Khand Udyog, Sahakari Mandali Limited Versus Commissioner of GST & C. Ex. -Rajkot
Central Excise
2018 (3) TMI 692 – CESTAT AHMEDABAD – TMI
CESTAT AHMEDABAD – AT
Dated:- 26-2-2018
Appeal No. E/10272-10273/2018 – ORDER No. A/10506-10507/2018
Central Excise
Dr. D. M. Misra, Hon'ble Member (Judicial)
For the Appellant : Shri S. Jhajharia, Advocate
For the Respondent : Shri K. J. Kinariwala, AR
ORDER
Per : Dr. D. M. Misra
These two appeals are filed against OIA No. CCESA-SRT(APPEAL/PS-83/2017-18 dated 16.10.2017, CCESA-SRT(APPEAL/PS-81/2017-18 dated 16.10.2017 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), GST & Central Excise, -Surat.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that alleging that the appellant had wrongly availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 3,79,343/- on HR Coil, MS Pipe, SS Tube, Joints etc., used for fabrication of capital goods and its supporting structures, show cause notice was issued for recovery/ appropriation of the said amount with
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
entral 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., which have been used by the appellants in the fabrication of support structures on which various capital goods are placed The same stands denied by the lower authority. The learned DR has sought disallowance of the same by citing the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra) and other judgments. Further, he has brought to our notice and emphasized the amendment carried out in Explanation-II to Rule 2(a) which defines the term Input w.e.f. 7-7-2009. It has further been pleaded that the Cenvat credit claimed for the period prior to this will be covered within the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra).
14. The Larger Bench decision in Vandana Global Ltd. s case (supra) laid down that
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
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.), which is required to be satisfied to find out whether or not particular goods could be said to be capital goods. When we apply the user test to the case in hand, we find that the structural steel items have been used for the fabrication of support structures for capital goods. The appellants have argued that the various capital goods, such as, kiln, material handling conveyor system, furnace, etc. cannot be suspended in mid-air. They will need to be suitably supported to facilitate smooth functioning of such machines. It is obvious that the structural items have been suitably worked upon for this purpose. Accordingly, the goods fabricated, using such structurals, will have to be considered as parts of the relevant machines. The definition of Capital Go
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =