M\/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd Versus Commissioner of GST And Central Excise, Trichy
Central Excise
2018 (3) TMI 606 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 29-1-2018
E\/Misc.\/41823\/2017 & E\/341\/2011 – A\/40235\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
\nShri V.S. Manoj, Advocate – for the Appellant
\nShri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AC) – for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: Ms. Sulekha Beevi,
\nBrief facts are that the appellants who are engaged in manufacture of excisable products are also availing the facility of CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods and input services. On perusal of ER-1 returns, it was noticed that the appellant had availed irregular credit on various MS items under the category of capital goods. Department was of the view that the credit availed on MS plates, sheets, beams, angles etc. used in structural construction of factory buildings, workshop, work shed etc. and also for <\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n redit has been availed by the appellant under the category of capital goods on MS items which were used as structural support for the tanks and pipelines. The tanks have to be placed at various heights and the raw material which is in liquid nature has to be carried through pipeline to various heights. MS items were used for structural support of the tanks and the pipelines. These are nothing but accessories of capital goods and therefore fall within the definition of capital goods. The ld. counsel submitted that the authority below has denied the credit merely relying upon the decision in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. – 2010-TIOL-624-CESTAT-DEL-LB, wherein it was held that credit is not admissible, as after fabrication, the MS items become part of the immovable property. He argued that the said decision is no longer a good law and the Tribunal by various decisions has held that credit availed on MS items used for structural support of capital goods is eligible for credit. That the i<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n f the photographs, we find that the submission made by the ld. counsel is not without merit. The Tribunal in the appellant's own case for a period prior to 7.7.2009 which analyzed the very same issue held that when the MS items are used for structural support of capital goods applying the user test evolved by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. – 2010 (255) ELT 481 (SC), observed that pipelines cannot be made functional without properly securing them and these structural supports are integral part of such plant and machinery. Following the decision in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars (supra), as well as the decision in the case of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (supra) and that of India Cements Ltd. – 2014-TIOL-1185-HC-MAD, we hold that disallowance of credit is unjustified. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd Versus Commissioner of GST And Central Excise, TrichyCentral Excise2018 (3) TMI 606 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 29-1-2018E\/Misc.\/41823\/2017 & E\/341\/2011 – A\/40235\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri V.S. Manoj, Advocate – for the Appellant Shri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AC) … Continue reading “M\/s. Chemplast Sanmar Ltd Versus Commissioner of GST And Central Excise, Trichy”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10901","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10901","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=10901"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10901\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=10901"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=10901"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=10901"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. The miscellaneous application filed for change of cause tit<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n