2015 (10) TMI 983

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....round that the said disputed goods cannot be considered as either input or capital goods. 2. Ld. Chartered Accountant Shri H.V. Ghirnikar appearing for the appellant submits that the concrete sleepers had been used for laying railway line for movement of goods between the plant facilities installed within the factory premises. With regard to JO trucks, the submission, of the ld. Consultant is that the said trucks are specially designed for movement of goods i.e. nitrogen and oxygen gas cylinders within the factory premises. He submits that 'motor vehicle' defined in section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 does not include the JO Trucks for the purpose of registration, since the said vehicle is only used inside the factory f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een denied to the appellant on the sole ground that the said trucks are motor vehicle on which cenvat credit is available only to the specified service provider and not to the manufacturer of the excisable goods. However, in the impugned order, it has been observed that the JO trucks are used by the appellant as material handling equipment. With regard to the concrete sleepers, the findings of the adjudicating authority are that the same are useable in the railway tracks and that laying the tracks cannot be considered as input in the manufacture of final product. He further observed that railway tracks cannot be considered as machine, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances, used for producing or processing of any goods ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es Act, 1988, since JO Truck is not to be categorised as 'motor vehicle', the exclusion for vehicles provided in the definition of input will have no application and the appellant will be eligible to take cenvat credit on the JO Trucks, since the said specially designed trucks have been used within the factory for movement of goods between the different plant facilities, the fact of which has also been accepted in the impugned order that JO Trucks are used as material handling equipment by the appellant. With regard to concrete sleepers used for laying railway lines within the factory premises, I am of the considered opinion that the said item is not falling under the exclusion clause of the definition of input and as such by nature....