Just a moment...
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 steel and MS items used for fabrication of capital goods and plant structures in the factory, and whether such items were ineligible on the ground that they became immovable property or were not covered by the definition of capital goods.
Analysis: The credit records, drawings, photographs, and project consultant's certificate showed that the disputed steel and MS items were used in fabrication of specified capital goods employed in manufacture. The show cause notice did not rebut the finding that the items were not used for civil construction. The conclusion that mere embedding of machinery or structures in concrete does not make them immovable was supported by the authorities relied upon in the order, and the Tribunal found the cited precedent on credit for such fabrication items to be applicable.
Conclusion: The credit on the disputed steel and MS items was held admissible, and the Revenue's objection to their eligibility was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, and the assessee's entitlement to the disputed Cenvat credit was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Steel and MS items used in fabrication of capital goods or plant structures for manufacture are eligible for Cenvat credit when the evidence shows such use and the items are not shown to be used for civil construction merely because they are embedded in the factory premises.