AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 461
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd impositio0n of equal amount of penalty on the appellant. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had applied for Central Excise Registration on 21/08/2007 for manufacturing excisable goods, namely- motor cars, engine and motor vehicle parts falling under Chapter Heading 87.03, 84.07/84.08 and 87.08 respectively of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and the Central Excise registration was granted by the Central Excise authority for the said purpose. 2.2 They took the credit of Rs. 2,14,05610.20 during the period 2007 -2008 to 2009-2010 on flat roll non corrugated products coated with zinc, strips of thickness 4.75 mm or more, towers other than for transmission line, other articles of iron and steel and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the appellant that they would not use the impugned input services at their Singur unit. 2.4 Adjudication of the impugned show cause notice culminated in passing the above order. Being aggrieved the appeal is filed before this Forum. 3.1 Ld. Advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant has used the various items falling under Chapter 72 and 73.for creating supporting structures and foundation of the main paint shop. Once this is done, the structures become part of the plant and machine of the main paint shop and used in or in relation to manufacture of final product. Hence, supporting structures should be treated as integral part of the capital goods. The Ld. Advocate submits that there is no restriction in Rule 2(k) for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... rules, being the raw materials for making capital goods to be used in the factory of manufacturer. He submitted that these items are generally used for construction purposes and the Ld. Commissioner in para 4.3 of the order has arrived on the conclusion that the said items were found to have been used for construction of flooring (mezzanine) structures in their work shop. They are embedded to earth and thus are in the nature of immovable property and are not excisable goods., In the instant case, the appellant is not eligible for CENVAT Credit in terms of the judgment in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. reported in 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tribunal-LB). 4.2 On the issue of credit taken on input services he submitted that in the impug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Credit Rules, 2004 read as under:- Rule 2(1) "input service" means any service,-/ (i) (ii) used by the manufacturer, whether directly or indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products and clearance of final products from the place of removal,and includes services used in relation to setting of, modernization, renovation or repairs of a factory, premises of provider of output service or an office relating to such factory or premises, advertisement or sales promotion, market research, storage upto the place of removal, procurement of inputs, activities relating to business, such as accounting, auditing, financing, recruitment and quality control, coaching and training, computer networking, credit rating, share regist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the above contention of the appellant has not been controverted by the Revenue.Further, during the relevant period, the CENVAT Credit Rules did not preclude a manufacturer to take the credit at a later date in respect of the impugned services already received by them. Revenues sole ground for denying the credit is that the appellant could not have utilized the impugned services for manufacture of the final product (as they dismantled their plant at Singur). We are of the opinion that as the input services were received by M/s. Tata Motors at Singur for manufacture of the final products, the said unit is eligible to take credit in terms of Rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Rule 2 (l) of the said Rules . 7. In view of the above....