M/s Bharat Oman Refineries Limited Versus CGST & EC, Bhopal And Vice-Versa
Central Excise
2018 (3) TMI 764 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 13-3-2018
Ex. Appeal No. 50413 of 2016, Ex. Appeal No. 51921 of 2016 & E/Cross/51292 of 2016 – Final Order Nos. 50995 – 50996/2018
Central Excise
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Hon'ble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
Sh. Akhil Gupta, Advocate for the assessee
Sh. R. K. Mishra, AR for the Revenue
ORDER
Per: B. Ravichandran:
Both assessee and the Revenue are aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2015 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal.
2. The assessee-appellant is engaged in the manufacture of petroleum products liable to Central Excise duty. They have engaged various contractors for executing different work in their manufacturing premises. The dispute in the present appeals is with reference to eligibility of the appellant-assessee for cenvat credit of duty paid
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Authority is not legally sustainable. He submitted that as per the chart enclosed in their appeal memo the nature of each of the item have been explained in detail alongwith supporting case laws for the eligibility. Ld. Counsel submitted that they are not pressing their case with reference to pre-fabricating (porta cabin) involving a credit of Rs. 1,91,640/-. On all other items listed in the appeal memo they have contested the findings of the Original Authority. Ld. Counsel relied on various decided cases to support his contention. His submission is that all these items are fabricated inside their factory premises for use directly or indirectly in the manufacturing facility of the appellant. The nature of use of each item is tabulated in the appeal memo.
5. Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the Authority has erred in granting credit to the appellant-assessee, in respect of HR steel plates used in the construction of storage tanks under the category of inputs. Ld. AR als
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ide the factory and fittings used in the adjacent premises though within the manufacturing facility in the overall campus. We note that denial of credit on such bifurcation is not justified. The light fittings are used as equipments for proper lighting of the premises and have nexus to the manufacturing activity of the appellant.
(ii) Regarding credit on Cable Trays disallowed by the original authority, we note that this cable trays are used as supporting structures for laying and holding the cables in the manufacturing facility. The credit on such items cannot be denied on the ground that they have become part of foundation or structural supports. These cable trays are used essentially for laying the electrical cables which are directly relevant to the manufacturing process. Reliance is placed on the decision of Tribunal in Shree Cement – 2016 (332) ELT 759 (Tri. Del.)
(iii) Credit on grating, chequered plates, fabricated platform are disallowed on the same ground that they were p
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
edit availed was on duty paid Angles, Channels, TMT bars, Steel Structures, MS fittings etc. which were disallowed. The reason recorded was that these are not accessories and components of machine. We note that the Tribunal has consistently held in various cases that these items when they are used in the fabrication of structures which are in association with capital goods or accessories of capital goods should also be eligible for credit. These decisions also referred to the decision of Madras High Court in India Cement -2015 (321) ELT 209 (Mad) and Thiru Arooran Sugars -2017 (355) ELT 373 (Mad.). Tribunal's decision in Lafarge India Pvt. Limited Manu/CE/425/16 is also relevant. Again applying the user test in the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills and Jawahar Mills (supra), the credit availed by the appellant-assessee cannot be denied.
As already noted that the appellant-assessee is not pressing for the credit on pre-fabricated building. The same is disallowed.
8. Regardin
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =