2018 (3) TMI 764 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI – CENVAT credit – inputs/capital goods – HR Steel Plates used for fabricating storage tanks – Held that: – No credit is availed on these storage tanks which are fabricated inside the premises of the appellant-assessee. Storage tanks are specifically mentioned in the definition for capital goods under Rule 2(a) of the CCR 2004 – Even otherwise, the storage tanks are essential capital goods which are used by the manufacturer of excisable goods. HR Steel Plates are basic raw material for fabricating such storage tanks – credit on HR Steel Plates allowed – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – Ex. Appeal No.50413 of 2016, Ex. Appeal No. 51921 of 2016 & E/Cross/51292 of 2016 – Final Order Nos. 50995 – 50996/2018 – Dated:- 13-3-2018 – 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. Ravicha
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
s. The impugned order was passed on such direction. The Original Authority allowed cenvat credit of ₹ 24,07,30,656/- to the appellant-assessee. He denied the credit of ₹ 1,52,45,891/-. Aggrieved by this order, both appellant-assessee and Revenue are in appeal. 4. Elaborating the grounds of appeal ld. Counsel for the appellant-assessee submitted that the denial of credit on various items under the category of capital goods / inputs by the Original 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 ₹ 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 content
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ies, coils and cables used to light up the plant area & nearby area within the refinery of the appellant. While the original Authority allowed credit on such fittings inside the factory premises. He disallowed the present credit on the ground that they are outside the manufacturing area. We note that such light fittings are admittedly used by the appellant-assessee inside their refinery premises only. It is not proper to distinguish such fittings used inside 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. T
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
on coal tar tape, bitumen, joists etc. were also disallowed only on the ground that they might have been used in for civil construction work. Ld. Counsel strongly pleaded that these are actually used for coating pipes and ducts connecting various capital machinery used in the manufacture of final product in the refinery. These are part and parcel of capital goods for proper functioning. We find no reason to deny the credit. (v). Substantial portion of credit 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) EL
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =