2013 (11) TMI 881

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Bajaj, Advocate JUDGEMENT Per. Rakesh Kumar :- The respondent are manufacturers of zinc and non-ferrous metals chargeable to Central Excise duty. During the period from March 2007 to March 2008, they took Cenvat credit of Rs. 4,19,515/- in respect of MS Angles, Channels, Bars, Plates, etc. The department being of the view the respondent are not eligible for Cenvat credit issued a show cau....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Assistant Commissioner's order against which the Revenue is in appeal. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri R.K. Mishra, the learned DR, assailed the impugned order by reiterating the grounds of appeal and emphasised that the steel items, in question, have not been used for fabrication of capital goods and that these items have been used in the machinery which is permanently embedded to eart....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to the findings of the Assistant Commissioner in para 12 and 13 of his order and finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 6 of the order, that the ground in the Revenues appeal that these items having been used in the machinery fixed to the earth are not eligible for Cenvat credit is totally wrong in view of judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Omax Auto Limited vs. CCE, Delhi -III [Fina....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el items, in question, as components of machinery, is factually incorrect as while the Assistant Commissioner in para 12 and 13 has given a clear finding based on the verification report of the Superintendent that the steel items, in question, has been used as components of machinery classifiable under Chapter 84, this finding has been upheld by the Commissioner (appeals) in para 6 of his order. A....