2015 (11) TMI 711

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e and discharging Central Excise duty and are also availing cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods. Appellant was issued with SCN dt. 22.8.2007 demanding irregular availment of cenvat credit on OPC cement, MS plates, MS beam, MS Angle, MS channels, MS sheets, M.S. Flat, TMT Rod and TOR Rod used for the construction of their "Dry Process Cement Manufacturing Plant". Since the said items were used in the said plant and the word "plant" is not defined as "Capital Goods" under Cenvat Credit Rules, the adjudicating authority denied the cenvat credit availed on the capital goods. The adjudicating authority in his order confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,05,52,336/- along with interest for the period from August 2006 to May 2007 towards the credit w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....MS rods, sheets, channels etc. in the appellant's own case reported in 2015 (321) ELT 209 (Mad.) allowed their appeal. He also relied on this Tribunal's Division Bench Final order No.40890/2014 dt. 16.9.2014 in the case of Dalmia Cements (Bharat) Ltd. Vs CCE Trichy where on an identical issue, their appeal was allowed. Reliance was placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of Vikram Cement Vs CCE Indore 2005 (187) ELT 145 (SC) and Thiru Arooran Sugars Vs CCE reported in 2015-TIOL-1734-HC-MAD-CX. The advocates submitted that in view of three judgements of the Hon'ble Madras High Court on identical issue in their own cases which are in their favour, wherein the Tribunal's order was upheld, the Hon'ble H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....paragraphs of the High Court's order reported in 2014 (305) ELT 558 (Mad.) are reproduced as under:- "7. Heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue and the learned counsel appearing for the assessee and perused the materials placed before this Court. 8. Even though Learned Standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the judgment in the assessee's own case reported in AIT-2011-358-HC = 2012 (285) E.L.T. 341 (Mad.) (The Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. India Cements Limited) had been appealed against, as of today, there are no details; in any event, the fact, herein is that the Revenue does not controvert the facts found by the Assistant Commissioner that the impugned goods were used for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....reported in 2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.), the Apex Court held that in view of the findings rendered by the Tribunal that the machineries were complete and having regard to the meaning of the expression "components/parts", with reference to the particular industry in question, the Apex Court rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. 11. Thus going by the factual finding, which are distinguishable from the facts found by the Authorities below in the case on hand, we have no hesitation in rejecting the Revenues appeal, thereby confirming the order of the Tribunal. 12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue pointed out that, the Tribunal....