2016 (10) TMI 674

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... credit availed by the appellant on structural items like joists, rails, angles, channel plates, etc. 3. Ms. Rinki Arora, ld. advocate represented the appellant. She pleads as follows:- (i) The subject iron and steel items have been used in the manufacture of capital goods like crane gentry, slag pot and metal pouring fixtures, etc., which have been duly certified by the Chartered Engineers. (ii) These iron articles have been used in the manufacture of capital goods, which are eligible for credit under Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3.1 Reliance is placed by the ld. advocate on the following case laws:- (i) India Cements Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai [2015 (321) ELT 209 (Mad.)] ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9;ble Supreme Court in the cases of CCE, Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. 2010 (255) ELT 481 (SC), CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Jawahar Mills Ltd. 2001 (132) ELT 3 (SC) and by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CCE, Tiruchirapalli Vs. India Cements Ltd. 2012 (285) ELT 341 (Mad.) wherein it is held that the term input and the term capital goods as defined under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 have been discussed in the case of CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Jawahar Mills Ltd. (supra). The yardstick of user test has been evolved clarifying that user of the subject items will determine whether the Cenvat credit (earlier it was called MODVAT) could be claimed with reference to the said items. The said user test was applied in the case ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y liberal." Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills (supra), inter alia observed as under:- "12. Inter alia observing that capital goods can be machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances if any of these goods is used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in the substance for the manufacture of final product, although this view was expressed in the light of the afore-noted definition of capital goods in the said Rule, which is not there in Rule 57Q, as applicable in the instant case, yet the user test evolved in the judgement, which is required to be satisfied to find out whether or not particular goods could be said to....