Just a moment...
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on HR coils, MS plates, channels and similar goods used for fabrication of storage tanks employed in the factory.
Analysis: The disputed goods were found to have been used for fabrication of storage tanks, supported by certificates placed on record and accepted by the first appellate authority. Storage tanks fall within the definition of capital goods, and by virtue of Explanation 2 to the Cenvat Credit Rules, goods used in the manufacture of capital goods qualify as inputs. The exclusion relating to goods used for construction of factory shed, foundation or support of capital goods did not apply on the facts, and there was no disputed allegation that the tanks were embedded to the earth. The consistent view of the Tribunal was followed that Chapter 72 goods used in fabrication of capital goods used in manufacture of final products are eligible for credit.
Conclusion: Cenvat credit was held admissible, and the Revenue's challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Goods falling under Chapter 72 used in fabrication of capital goods deployed in the factory for manufacture of final products are eligible as inputs, unless they are used for construction of shed, foundation or support structures excluded by the rules.