TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 346
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....items such as MS plates, flats, pipes, sheets, rods, etc. and imposed penalties on the appellant. After perusing the records, we find that approximately an amount of CENVAT credit of Rs.32.6 lakhs was denied for the period from April 2007 to June 2009 covered by the first four show-cause notices, on the ground that the said steel items were used for fabricating structural support to raw mill, silo, packing plant, etc. CENVAT credit was denied on the steel items for the period from July 2009 to October 2010 covered by the last two show-cause notices mainly on the ground that the steel items were used to fabricate structural support to a pre-heater tower. In all cases, the steel items in question were held to be not covered by the definition ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments Ltd. : 2012 (285) E.L.T. 341 (Mad.) wherein the High Court followed Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills (supra) and held that CENVAT credit was admissible under Rule 57Q to structural steel items such as CTD bars which were used for construction of cement plant. Reliance is also placed on UOI vs. Associated Cement Company Ltd.: 2011 (267) E.L.T. 55 (Chhattisgarh) wherein also Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills (supra) was followed and CENVAT credit was allowed on similar structural steel items which were used in construction of factory building linked with machinery. The learned consultant has also referred to yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court viz. judgment dated 13.12.2012 in Commissioner vs. M/s. India Cements....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licting decisions on the issue till it was resolved by the larger bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra). It is argued that, from a line of judgments which were holding ground during the material period, a right accrued to the appellant to claim CENVAT credit on the structural steel items irrespective of use of such items in civil foundation or other construction purposes in the factory. It is argued that a right already accrued cannot be taken away by a subsequent amendment. 3. We have also heard the learned Commissioner (AR) who has reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority and has also endeavoured to distinguish the High Court judgments and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning and W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the CCR, 2004 reads thus: components, parts or accessories of the items mentioned in Clauses (i) and (ii) above. Clause (5) under Rule 57Q(1) and Clause (iii) under Rule 2(a)(A) stand on equal footing inasmuch as both these clauses envisaged that parts/components/accessories of 'capital goods' viz. machinery, equipments, etc. falling under specified chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (Chapters 84, 85, etc.) would also be get covered by the definition of 'capital goods'. In this view of the matter, the adjudicating authority appears to have rightly followed the apex court's ruling in Saraswati Sugar Mills (supra). Therefore, we are of the prima facie view that CENVAT credit cannot be claimed by the appellant on the structural....