TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (3) TMI 346
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....centrates liable to central excise duty. They were also availing cenvat credit on various inputs and capital goods. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant for disallowing the cenvat credit of Rs. 60,95,874/-. On adjudication, order dated 30.12.2013 was passed by the Commissioner. On appeal, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Original Authority with a direction to examine the report submitted by the Range Superintendent dated 12.12.2013 submitted by the jurisdictional Range Superintendent regarding various usage of disputed items. The impugned order was passed in pursuance of the said remand direction. The Original Authority while allowing cenvat credit of Rs. 3,99,269/-disallowed the credit of Rs. 26,40,704/-. He also im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....technical structures were denied by the Original Authority. The reason given is that these items are basically designed to support mechanical equipment, to avoid vibration and as such, no credit can be allowed on them. I find that the inspection report of the officer categorically states that all these items were used by the assessee for manufacture of categorical part of conveyor belt systems, thickener and filtration system. It is not clear how a contrary finding was arrived by the Original Authority. A perusal of the description of these items and the nature of equipments with which they are associated shows clearly that without these items, the equipment or machinery will not be fully functional. The Original Authority did not justify h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the credit on the ground that these items can be used only as support structures. No supporting evidence to arrive at such conclusion has been elaborated by the Original Authority. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CCE, Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. - 2010 (255) ELT 481 (SC) applied "user test" to find out whether or not particular goods could be said to be capital goods which would depend on use for which it was put into as such. The classification of item purchased by the appellant by itself will not determine the eligibility of cenvat credit. The use to which these items were put to by the appellant will decide the eligibility. Applying such user test, it is clear that in the present case, the disputed ....