Appellant granted CENVAT Credit for structural parts used in machinery fabrication. The appellant was initially denied CENVAT Credit for M.S. Channels and M.S. Beams by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, after reviewing the usage of ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Appellant granted CENVAT Credit for structural parts used in machinery fabrication.
The appellant was initially denied CENVAT Credit for M.S. Channels and M.S. Beams by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, after reviewing the usage of these materials in fabricating machinery within the factory, the judge determined that they were not merely for support but served as structural parts. As a result, the appellant was found eligible for the credit availed, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and granting relief to the appellant.
Issues: Denial of CENVAT Credit for M.S. Channels and M.S. Beams
Paragraph 1: The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the CENVAT Credit of Rs.64,552 availed by the appellant, stating that M.S. Channels and M.S. Beams used by the appellant are not considered capital goods or their components under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
Paragraph 2: The appellant's consultant argued that the M.S. Channels and Beams were used to fabricate machinery within the factory, providing details on how they were utilized in the process. Reference was made to a circular by the Board to support the claim that these materials were used as structural parts, not merely for support.
Paragraph 3: The Revenue's representative contended that the M.S. beams and channels were used to support machinery, leading to the denial of CENVAT Credit by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Paragraph 4: After reviewing the submissions and photographs, the judge observed that the M.S. beams were used to elevate the electric motor, which was connected to a roller for moving finished goods. The judge determined that this usage did not constitute mere support but rather as a structural part. Similarly, the M.S. channels were used as rollers for moving goods, indicating they were not solely for support.
Paragraph 5: Considering the arguments and evidence presented, the judge found the appellant eligible for the credit availed. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with relief granted to the appellant.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
