2018 (1) TMI 152 – CESTAT HYDERABAD – TMI – CENVAT credit – capital goods – Pig Moulds, MS Plates, Channels, MS Rounds, TMT Bars, Lancing Pips – MS Plates, Channels, TMT Bars etc. – Held that: – the First Appellate Authority in the impugned order in Paragraph 7, 8 & 9 has given detailed reasoning as to why according to him CENVAT credit on Central Excise Duty on this items needs to be allowed – It can be seen from the above reproduced findings this factual matrix is not contradicted in any form by the Revenue – credit allowed – appeal dismissed – decided against Revenue. – E/COD/30581/2017, E/Cross/30328/2017 in E/31077/2017, E/30252/2017 – A/31880-31881/2017 – Dated:- 21-11-2017 – Mr. M. V. Ravindran., Member (Judicial) Shri Arun Kumar, Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Appellant. Shri Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per: M. V. Ravindran] This application is filed by the Revenue for condonation of delay in filing the supplementary appeals. Since this app
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
AT credit on Central Excise Duty on this items needs to be allowed to the respondent reproduce the same: 7. I have gone through the issue in detail. I find that the Lower Authority has elaborately discussed this issue and the reasoning flowing in it needs no repetition. I find that lower authority in his findings recorded his inference in para 14 and para 15 of the impugned order that the appellant is eligible for credit in respect of goods i.e. Moulds in terms of definition in Rule 26a)(A)(iv) of CCR 2004, alloyed CENVAT credit of (Rs.1,43,389/- + ₹ 1,33,912/-) on Moulds under capital good; and in respect of goods i.e. Lancer Pipes ₹ 1,21,793/- under definition under Rule 2(k) of CCR 2004, admitted the credit as Inputs, by following the ruling of the case law CCE New Delhi Vs Haryana Concast Ltd., [2002 (148) ELT 905 (Tri.- Del.)]. I find there is no dispute from either parties to this extent, I do not find any valid reason to differ to the decision of lower authority. Hen
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
apital goods, without blindly applying the ratio of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills decision [2010 (255) ELT 481 (S.C.)]. Admittedly, the user carried out and in O-I-O No.13/2007-08 (JN) dt. 20.12.2007, and (Denova) O-I-O No.03/2012-13 and 04/2012-13 dated 10.05.2012, it was recorded that -MS Plates- used for making PCM hot metal ladles, Runners, Emergency runners, Conveyor Bell on which the moulds with molten pig iron passes through. -MS Angles- used in columns hand rails, platforms, cornr joints, and brick lining chimneys, ladles, etc. -TMT Bars- used in ground hooper, day bins, pump house, mould pulling sumps, and also used at furnace. I find there is no contradicting facts recorded in the orders alleging that the goods were used for civil construction or laying of foundation or making structures for supporting capital goods. In para 13 of the order the lower authority had merely mentioned that the definition of inputs has undergone vast changes, but did not brought into reco
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
explanation-2 to rule 2(k) requires the entire rule 2(a) to be read into it, since Rule 2 opens with the words In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires . Thus the eligibility of the impugned to credit prior to under Rule 2(k) is contingent upon the exact deployment of the credit availed goods. To this end, appellant contended in reply to the notice, which has been dismissed by the lower authority on the ground that the goods on which CENVAT credit was taken do not confirm to definition of inputs or capital goods. The denial on this ground is arbitrary and has to be pronounced legally unsustainable. 9. Admissibility of items to 'input' credit when it has been availed under capital goods category is rectifiable in terms of the rulings pronounced in the TAFE [2002 (140) ELT 401] and Philips Electronics [2008 (228) ELT 36] case laws. It is trite law that the larger benefit of credit cannot be denied on technicalities. The appellant shall furnish a Chartered Engineer&#
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =