TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (4) TMI 201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Hot Air Duct and Raw Mill Low Grade Hopper, (b) for repairs and maintenance (reconditioning) of plant and machinery and (c) for fabricating structural support to capital goods. The appellant is also against the decision of the lower appellate authority to vacate the penalties imposed on the assessee by the original authority. In adjudication of the show-cause notice dt.13.8.2009, which had invoked the extended period of limitation on the alleged ground of suppression of facts by the assessee, the original authority denied CENVAT credit to the aforesaid extent to the assessee and appropriated equal amount already reversed by them towards such demand. Equal amount of penalty was also imposed on the assessee. A separate penalty of Rs.10,000/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endent (AR) has reiterated this view of the appellant. Per contra, the learned Chartered Accountant has referred to the Tribunal s decision in Alfred Herbert Ltd. vs. Commissioner: 2009 (245) E.L.T. 407 (Tri.-Bang.) upheld by the High Court in Commissioner vs. Alfred Herbert (India) Ltd.: 2010 (257) E.L.T. 29 (Kar.). In the cited case, certain materials were used for replacement of worn out parts of machinery and such materials so used in the process of maintenance of the machinery were held to be inputs under Rule 2(k). 4. With regard to the structural items used for fabricating capital goods, the appellant submits that the plant and machinery fabricated at site were not excisable goods and hence would not be covered under the defi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner: 2004 (174) E.L.T. 375 (Tri.-Bang.). Further, he has also relied on two judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court viz., Madras Cements Ltd. vs. CCE: 2010 (254) E.L.T. 3 (SC) and Saraswati Sugar Mills vs. CCE: 2011-TIOL-73-SC-CX. On this basis, it is submitted that the structural support fabricated by the appellant for the erection of capital goods cannot be called as capital goods and therefore, the materials viz. plates, angles, channels, etc. used in the fabrication would not qualify to be inputs. 7. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. On the first issue debated before me, which pertains to 72 MTs of plates, flats, channels, etc. which were used for reconditioning of plant and machinery, the respondent a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....annot be disputed that such status can be extended to goods used in the replacement of parts of capital goods, which process, in the present case, has been described as repairs and maintenance (reconditioning). Apparently, a view to this effect was taken by this Tribunal in the case of Alfred Herbert (supra) and the same was upheld by the jurisdictional High Court. Therefore the respondent is eligible for input duty credit on the structural materials used for reconditioning of existing capital goods. 8. On the second issue (whether the structural materials used in fabrication of the capital goods which were in turn used for the manufacture of cement (final product) in the factory), the respondent s case is squarely supported by the ....