2014 (9) TMI 107

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l: 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 the respondents are the manufacturers of sugar and molasses. To set up their sugar plant, they entered into an agreement with the supplier to supply the plant & ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r components nor 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 Mills 2011 (270) ELT 465 (SC) and the Apex Court came at a decision that for support....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5. Heard both sides. Considered the submissions. 6. It is not a 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 whether the Joints channels, angles and MS beams used in the fabricating supporting structures for installation of equipments are entitled to CENVAT credi....