TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 848
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ma, Authorized Representative (DR) JUDGEMENT Per. Rakesh Kumar :- The appellant are manufacturers of Terry Towel and Terry Towel Fabrics chargeable to Central Excise duty. During 2006 they took Cenvat credit of Rs. 54,004/- on the basis of four invoices, one of which had been issued by M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. for supply of M.S. Tube falling under tariff heading 73063090 and three invoices had bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not M.S. Tubes and that the PVC/HDPE Tubes were not eligible for capital goods Cenvat credit. The above order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 11/01/11. Though before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant pleaded that the goods received from M/s Surya Roshni were M.S. Pipes and not tube lights and that MS Tubes and PVC/HD....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and tubes' in the definition of capital goods as given in Rule 2 (a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, that the stand of the Department that the appellant have received tube lights from M/s Surya Roshni Ltd. is totally wrong, that the MS tubes and PVC/ HDPE pipes received by the appellant have been used by the appellant in their effluent treatment plant and that in view of the above, the impugned order is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and hence the goods supplied by them under the invoice issued by them have to be tube lights and not MS tubes. With regard to the PVC/HDPE pipes, the Department's stand is that the same are not covered by the term 'pipes and tubes' and hence are not eligible for Cenvat credit. Another plea of the Department is that there is no evidence given by the appellant regarding use of the above-mentioned it....