2016 (12) TMI 648

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the disputed period, the appellant had availed cenvat credit on various items, namely, HSS plate, channels, joist, beams, chequered coil/ plates etc. used in the electro static pacificator, conveyor, Banker chimney and Ash Sylo etc. The appellant also availed cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on oxygen gas used for repair and maintenance of the machinery installed in the factory. Cenvat credit availed on the disputed goods were denied by the Department on the ground that the same cannot be considered as either input or capital goods for the appellant and taking of cenvat credit is not in conformity with the cenvat statute. 2. Shri Menon, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ve ratio with reference to the eligibility of credit on these steel items. Reference can be made to the recent decision of the Tribunal in Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. - 2016-TIOL-2451-CESTAT-Del. The Tribunal observed as under:- "13. Now we turn to the question, whether credit is admissible on various structural steel items, such as, M.S.Angles, Sections, Channels, TMT Bar etc., which have been used by the appellants in the fabrication of support structures on which various capital goods are placed? The same stands denied by the lower authority. The learned DR has sought disallowance of the same by citing the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra) and other judgements. Further, he has brought to o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... said judgement, the Apex Court has referred to the user test evolved by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Jawahar Mills Ltd.- 2001 (132) ELT 3 (SC) = 2002-TIOL-87-SC-CX, which is required to be satisfied to find out whether or not particular goods could be said to be capital goods. When we apply the user test to the case in hand, we find that the structural steel items have been used for the fabrication of support structures for capital goods. The appellants have argued that the various capital goods, such as, kiln, material handling conveyor system, furnace, etc. cannot be suspended in mid air. They will need to be suitably supported to facilitate smooth functioning of such machines. It is obvious that the structural items....