2009 (2) TMI 320

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondents availed Cenvat credit on various items like MS Plates/Angles/Beams/Joists etc. on the ground that they are falling under the definition of 'capital goods.' The lower authorities felt that the Cenvat credit availed by the respondent is in correct and hence, issued a show cause notice asking them to reverse the amount of Cenvat credit availed. The respondents contested the show cause notice before the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority considered the oral and written submission made by the respondents, came to the conclusion that the respondent is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 5,14,320/- (Rupees Five lakhs Fourteen thousand three hundred and twenty only) and also imposed a pe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h the assessees had availed the Cenvat credit do not fall within the definition of capital goods as they are neither goods falling under Chapters 82, 84, 85, 90 and Heading No. 6802 and sub-heading No. 6801 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 nor components, spares and accessories of such capital goods. (5) In short the said goods cannot be classified under any of the categories of capital goods as defined in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002/2004. Such interpretation, in like situation is important, as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh-II v. M/s. Bhalla Enterprises - 2004 (173) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.) wherein it is observed- "4. The basic Rule in interpretation of any statutory provision ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Revenue has not disputed that the said Plates, Angles etc., are used by the respondent in their factory premises for the purpose of using these as components, spares or accessories and that the issue is now squarely covered by the decision of this very Bench in the case of Divi's Laboratories Ltd. v. CCE, Visakhapatnam - 2006 (196) E.L.T. 285 (Tri.-Bang.). 5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. It is seen that the Revenue is trying to deny the Cenvat credit to the appellants on the duty paid on MS Plates/Angles/Beams/Joists etc. on the ground that these are not covered under the definition of the 'Capital Goods' under Rule 2(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, as these products did not fal....