MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Nashik
Central Excise
2019 (1) TMI 815 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI
CESTAT MUMBAI – AT
Dated:- 12-9-2018
Appeal No. E\/87172\/2018 – A\/88204\/2018
Central Excise
Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
\nShri R.V. Shetty, Advocate for appellant
\nShri A.S. Parabh, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent
\nORDER
\nPer: S.K. Mohanty
\nBrief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacture of M.S. Angles, Bars, Sheets, Beams etc., falling under Chapter 72 and 73 of CETA, 1985. The appellant avails CENVAT Credit of Central Excise duty paid on the inputs and capital goods used in, or in relation to manufacture of the said final products. During the disputed period, the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit on the goods namely, M.S. Angles, Bars, Sheets, Beams etc., considering as 'inputs'. Further, the appellant also availed CENVAT Credit on M.S. Beams for erecting electric poles for transmission of elec<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise – 2016 (42) STR 249 (Tri.) and Vandana Global Ltd. v. CCE – 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri. LB), Cenvat benefit will not available on the disputed goods. It has further been held in the impugned order that since M.S. Beams were used for erection of poles for carrying out the activity of transmission of electricity and not used for generation of electricity, Cenvat benefit of M.S. Beams cannot be extended to the appellant. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 19.04.2018, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), CGST & Central Excise, Nasik, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n the assessee filed replies which were received by this office on 15.07.2015 and 03.08.2015. The defence taken by assessee in above replies are summarized as under:- = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise NashikCentral Excise2019 (1) TMI 815 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMICESTAT MUMBAI – ATDated:- 12-9-2018Appeal No. E\/87172\/2018 – A\/88204\/2018Central ExciseMr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri R.V. Shetty, Advocate for appellant Shri A.S. Parabh, Asst. Commr (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty Brief facts … Continue reading “MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise Nashik”<\/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-16204","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16204","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=16204"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16204\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16204"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16204"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16204"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the disputed goods viz. M.S. Angles, Bars, Beams were not used by the appellant for laying of foundation or for making structural support to the capital goods and the same were used for periodic repairs and maintenance of the machines \/ machineries installed in the facto<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n (i) They have not used MS Angles, Bars, Sheets, Beams for laying foundation or for making structural support to capital goods. The machineries already installed are demanding repairs and maintenance periodically. The above inputs are being used when certain part or assembly gets damaged on account of regular use. For example, 'repeator' is a part of rolling mills which needs frequent repairs and maintenance. Similarly hot billets when passes through rolling mill, it damages conveyor. When it gets damaged, it needs regular repairs and maintenance.
\n (ii) In respect of beams which are used as electrical poles outside the factory, they say and submit that the definition of input under Rule 2(k) includes all goods used for generation of electricity which is used captively. The word generation includes distribution \/ transm<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n