Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Trichy Versus M/s. Shree Ambika Sugars Ltd.
Central Excise
2018 (6) TMI 733 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 1-5-2018
E/Misc. /41936 & 42002/2017 and E/341 & 342/2012 – Final Order No. 41410-41411/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) and Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
Shri S.Govindarajan, AC (AR) for the Appellant
Ms. Cynduja Crishnan, Advocate for the Respondent
ORDER
Per Bench
Brief facts are that the appellants are manufacturers of sugar and molasses and are availing the facility of CENVAT credit on capital goods / inputs in the factory. On verification of accounts, it was noticed that the appellant had availed credit on MS joists, MS channels, MS angles, HR coils, MS plates etc. used as structural in the construction work. The Department was of the view that these items which fall under Chapter 72 are not covered under the definition of capital goods and therefo
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
when MS angles, channels etc. are used for fabrication and setting up of towers, these items are not eligible for credit for the reason that after fabrication, they are attached to the earth and become immovable property.
3. On behalf of the respondent, ld. counsel Ms. Cynduja Crishnan submitted that the period involved is prior to 7.7.2009. The definition of inputs was amended to include an Explanation by which the use of MS items was restricted. Thus, the Explanation disallowed the credit on MS items used for platforms, civil work and support structures. The period involved being prior to 7.7.2009, the said amendment is not applicable to the respondent. Further, the impugned items were used for fabrication and repair of molasses tank and operational platform without which the manufacturing activity cannot be carried out. The said issue was considered by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars Vs. CESTAT, Chennai – 2017 (355) ELT 373 (Mad.) wherein the Hon'
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
decision rendered in Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd. was with regard to inputs used for providing output services. In the present case, the respondent is engaged in manufacturer of final products and there is very close nexus with the inputs (MS channels etc.) as they were used for fabrication of support structures for the reason that without such support structures the manufacturing activity cannot be carried out as they become integral part of the machineries capital goods after fabrication. Thus, the decision relied upon the ld. AR in Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
6. In the event, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The impugned order is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
7. The miscellaneous applications filed by Revenue for change of cause title are allowed.
(Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court)
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Or
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =