TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 297
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dinate Bench of this Court has admitted this appeal on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether, Cenvat Credit is admissible on HR Plates, Sections, Sheets, etc. (falling under Chapter No. 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985) as Capital Goods?" 3.The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee, during the assessment year under consideration, was engaged in the manufacture of Sugar and Molasses and were availing the Cenvat Credit facility on both the Capital Goods and inputs under Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001. It was revealed that a credit of Rs. 36,357/- on sections and HR Plates had been wrongly availed by the respondent under Rule 3, of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001, since the said goods were neither co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndents-assessee. 6. From a perusal of the record, it appears that, respondents have bought the impugned goods in the form of plates and section but could not use it instantly. They were given a shape inside the factory as per the requirement of being fitted into the capital goods and thereafter these items were used in their factory for fabrication of storage tank for sugar cane juice clarifier. The present Cenvat Credit Rule determines the eligibility of Cenvat Credit on capital goods. Ofcourse, the components spares and accessories of the said goods are also eligible for credit. H.R. Plates and section is classified under chapter 72 of Central Excise Act, 1985. Chapter 72 does not figure as one of the chapter in the definition of the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such, fall within the ambit of Section 2(b)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The order of the CESTAT, in rejecting the contention of the Revenue, though cryptic does not give rise to any substantial question of law necessitating interference in proceedings under Section 35G of the Act." 8. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-II Vs. SLR Steels Ltd. 2012 (280) E.L.T. (Kar.) in paragraph Nos.3 and 8 it has been observed that:- 3. Learned counsel for the revenue assailing the impugned order contends that the assessee is not in the business of manufacture of storage tanks. Storage tank is an immovable property. It is not excisable. In those circumstances, the duty paid on steel and cement which is used for the construc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anding the fact that the storage tank is an immovable property. Therefore, the appellate authority committed a serious error firstly in holding that the storage tank is an immovable property and secondly on the ground that it cannot be bought and sold in the market, the criteria which is totally unwarranted under the circumstances. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the said order and holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit. 9. In the case of Union of India Vs. Associated Cement Company Ltd. 201 (267) E.L.T. 55 (Chhattisgarh) in paragraph Nos.6 and 5 it has been observed that:- "6. In the instant case also, the Tribunal has held that the assessee was entitled for Modvat credit on capital goods namely, ....