2013 (8) TMI 301

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The period of dispute in this case is from October 2004 to February 2005. During this period, the appellant took Cenvat credit of Rs. 6,28,320/- on the basis of 14 invoices issued by M/s Kamal Envirotech Pvt. Ltd., new Delhi under which various items were supplied by M/s Kamal Envirotech Pvt. Ltd. for setting of paint shop. The items were supplied by M/s Kamal Envirotech Pvt. Ltd. on payment of duty under heading 85.48. The Revenue's contention is that the appellant had placed order with the supplier for supply of a paint shop, that the goods after being brought into the factory were used for erection of paint shop which is an immovable property not liable to duty in view of judgment of Apex Court in the case of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Court's judgment in the case of CCE, Mumbai vs. Josts Engineering Co. Ltd. (supra), wherein it was held that the paint shop erected in the factory being fixed to the earth is immovable property and is not excisable goods, is not applicable to the issue involved in this case and that, in view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. 4. Shri Nagesh Pathak, the learned Departmental Representative, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in it and emphasised that the appellant have placed orders for the entire paint shop, that various components of the paint shop after being received into the factory were fabricated and erected after which the paint shop came into existence, which being im....