TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tes to eligibility of the appellant for Cenvat credit of duty paid on various steel items during the period February 2007 to September 2008. The Original Authority concluded that the appellants are not eligible for Cenvat credit for Rs. 4,49,64,397/-. He imposed penalty of equivalent amount in terms of Rule 15 of Central Excise Rules, 2004 read with Section11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that; (a) Cenvat credit of Rs. 4.09 Crore has been availed by them on various components of capital goods used in erection of Power Plant. (b) Classification of various items received by the appellant was not in dispute. The credit has been denied only on the ground that these components....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rious capital goods used should not simply called as supports only. Further, the decision of the Tribunal in Vandana Global Ltd (supra) regarding retrospective application of Explanation-2 (a) of Cenvat Credit Rules has held to be not correct by later decisions of the High Courts. Reference was made to the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Mundra Ports and Special Economic Zone 2015 (39) STR 276 (Guj.). (f) The demand for extended period is not legally sustainable. The appellants had shown the credit taken in their monthly statutory ER-1 returns. The eligibility of credit on various steel items was subject matter of interpretation and dispute. Accordingly, there can be no question of fraud, suppression etc. in the present case. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n used in components or accessories of identified capital goods. Such use justified the credit eligibility, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills 2010 (255) ELT 481 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court proposed User Test to find out the eligibility of MS Items for Cenvat credit eligibility. The same has been followed by various High Courts and Tribunals while deciding the eligibility of such items for credit. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in India Cements Ltd vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2015 (321) ELT 209 (Mad.) held that MS Plates including channels used in the erection of various machinery such as crusher, kiln, hopers etc. can be considered as eligible for Cenvat credit as components of capital goods. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dit of various items MS Channels, Beams, HR Plates etc. were subject matter of various decisions of the Tribunal. A reference can be made one of the recent decision in Singhal Enterprise Pvt. Limited vs. CCE, Raipur 2016 (341) ELT 372 (Tri. Del.). The Tribunal observed as under:- "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 Bench in the case of Vandana Global Limited (supra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4. 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 Limited - 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 structural items have been....