2014 (3) TMI 311

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Adv. PER : Ashok Jindal Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand proposed in the show-cause notice for denying CENVAT Credit taken by the respondent on supporting structure was dropped. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondents are the manufacturers of sugar and molasses. To set up their sugar plant, they entered in an agreement with the supplier of t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....venue is before me. 3. Ld. AR submits that these supporting structures are neither components, spares and accessories of the goods specified at item no. 1 of capital goods as specified in Rule 57AA of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and both the lower authorities have relied upon the decision of Simbhaoli Sugar Mill ltd. (supra) which has been considered by the Apex Court in Saraswati Sugar Mill....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 276/110/96 TRU dated 02.12.1996. 5. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions. 6. It is not case that the supporting structures in dispute were erected in the factory of the respondent. In the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills (supra) the issue before the Apex Court was that joints, channels, angles and MS beams used in the fabricating supporting structures for installation of equipments ar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../- were taken by the respondent for cane carrier, cane unloader, gantry girder assembly, centrifugal machinery, boiler, sugar mill, juice tank, sugar storage bins. These items cannot be terms as supporting structures, therefore, credit cannot be denied. Further the credit has been taken for structure and part of sugar machinery and equipment to the tune of Rs. 6,21,000/-. No where it is coming fro....