2014 (7) 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

....f the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Chennai. 2. The substantial question of law raised before this Court is as follows: "Whether the Tribunal is correct in holding that structural steel items viz., M.S.Plates, Angles, Channels and HR Sheets used for civil construction activity, are capital goods eligible for credit in terms of Rule 57Q as it stood at the relevant time?" 3. The first respondent herein/assessee is a manufacturer of cement falling under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff. The assessee availed Cenvat Credit on capital goods used in the erection of various capital goods, viz., new additional ESP for raw mill project, additional fly ash handling system, MMD Cru....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Precipitator for raw mill project, additional fly ash handling system, MMD crusher etc. for the Dry Process Cement Manufacturing Plant. It is evident that MS Angles, MS Beams, MS Channels etc. were used in the erection of machineries it become component of the same, which are integral part of Dry Process Cement Manufacturing Plant. It is noted that Fly Ash handlish system is a pollution control equipment and particularly mentioned in 2(a)(A)(ii) of Rules, 2004. The allegation in the above show-cause notice that the Chapter Heading of these items were not covered under Rule 2(a) of the Rules, 2004, is not sustainable, in respect of pollution control equipments because the rule does not specify the tariff headings under which pollution contro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has preferred the present appeal. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue heavily relied upon the decision reported in 2011-TIOL-73-SC-CX (Saraswati Sugar Mills V. Comissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - III) in Civil Appeal No.5295 of 2003 dated 02.08.2011. However, we find that this Court has earlier considered the case of the assessee in two similar cases of the previous assessment years in C.M.A.No.1301 of 2005 dated 31.12.2012, where a reference was made to an order passed earlier in respect of the very same assessee. While dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue the Division Bench of this Court held as follows: "8. Even though learned standing counsel appearing f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) (Saraswati Sugar Mills V. Commissioner of C.Ex., Delhi-III) is concerned, we do not think that the said decision would be of any assistance to the Revenue, considering the factual finding by the Tribunal therein in the decided case that the machineries purchased by the assessee were machineries themselves. Thus, after referring to the decision reported in 2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur V. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.), the Apex Court held that in view of the findings rendered by the Tribunal that the machineries were complete and having regard to the meaning of the expression "components/parts", with reference to the particular industry in question, the Apex Court rejected the appeal filed by the a....