2017 (1) TMI 20

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appellant has availed cenvat credit on Angles, channels, beams, flat, joist and plates etc. but the same was denied. 3. After hearing Shri J.M. Sharma, ld. Consultant for the appellant and Shri Yogesh Agarwal, ld. A.R. for Revenue, it appears that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lafarge India Pvt. Limited vs. C.C.E., Raipur [Final Order No.53775/2016 dated 27.9.2016] wherein it was observed that - "6. We find that apart from the various other case laws relied upon by the appellant as above, the decisions of Hon'ble Madras High Court in India Cements Limited 2012 (285) ELT 341 (Mad.), 2014 (310) ELT 636 (Mad.) and 2014 (305) ELT 558 (Mad.) all on the same set of facts, though with reference....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eligible for credit by applying user test as evolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (supra)". 4. A reference can also be made to another decision of the Tribunal in Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC&CE, Raipur vide final order No. 53013/2016 dated 12.08.2016 where it was observed that - "13. Now we turn to the question, whether credit is admissible on various structural steel items, such as, MS 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 Be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hile Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the said judgment, 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), 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 ....