2009 (10) TMI 799

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te, for the Respondent. ORDER In this appeal, the department has challenged the grant of CENVAT credit to the respondent by the lower appellate authority in respect of certain items held to be capital goods. In adjudication of a show-cause notice, the original authority had held that the respondent had wrongly availed CENVAT credit of Rs. 3,98,173/- on CTD bars and angles, channels, sheets, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing under Chapter 72/73 of the Central Excise Tariff schedule would not qualify to be capital goods. They cannot be considered as components, spares or accessories of any capital goods. Apart from reiterating the above case of the appellant, the learned DR has relied on the following decisions of this Tribunal : (1) Commissioner of Central Excise v. DSM Ltd. - 2003 (162) E.L.T. 987 (Tri.-Del.); (2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and hence those decisions do not appear to be any precedent for the instant case wherein the question to be considered is whether the channels, sheets, coils, etc. used by the respondent for fabrication work would qualify to be capital goods under Rule 2(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, inasmuch as the period of dispute in this case is October to December, 2005. The above rule reads as follow....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not include any equipment or appliance used in an office; or (2)  for providing output service." 4. According to the appellant, the materials in question were used for fabrication of the factory-shed wherein additional plant and machinery were to be housed as part of an expansion project in 2005-06. The respondent says that they were used for fabrication of a reactor, but this claim is ....