2017 (1) TMI 1124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y of the appellants plant. (ii) Credit erection, commissioning and installation services amounting to Rs. 4,17,51,024/- availed in respect of erection and installation and commissioning of various plants and equipments for the enhanced capacity. (iii) Credit in respect of services availed outside factory premises related to maintenance of railway siding etc amounting to Rs. 36,31,644/-. The appellants have accepted and there is no dispute in respect of demand amounting to Rs. 12,19,544/- and the same was reversed by them. Therefore, only an amount of Rs. 24,12,100/- is disputed in this appeal. 2. We have heard both sides. 3. In respect of issue no. (1) Commercial and Industrial service, the exclusion of services relating to cons....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Rules, 2004, before or after the amendment brought about aforesaid. The Id. Counsel has adverted to the agreement which details that the work order was for erection, installation of machinery and equipment. In the circumstances, the denial of credit on this account amounting to Rs. 4,17,024/- is not in order and hence is set aside. 5. Coming to the services in regard to railway siding, it is seen that the dispute is only in respect of Rs. 24,12,100/- relating to maintenance of siding. The Ld. Counsel has relied upon the decision in Jayaswal Neco Ltd vs CCE, Raipur-2015(319)ELT-247(SC) and M/s RSWM (Fabric Division) Vs CUE Jaipur reported in 2015(37)STR -1074 (Tri.Del). On the other hand, the adjudicating authority has analysed the issue ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Needless to say that the railway sidings laid outside the factory are part and parcel of the facility for transportation provided inside the factory premises. In the case of CCE, Mumbai Vs. Shree Chhatrapati Shahu Co.Op. Sugar Factory Ltd. (supra) in which the pipes and fittings used for carrying spent wash (hazardous waste) from distilleries to compost yard, situated outside factory was held to be part and parcel of the pollution control system and has to be treated as capital goods. The credit on pipes was held to be admissible as capital goods. The Tribunal in the said case observed that pipeline fittings within the factory and outside the factory cannot be segregated but has to be treated as one entity as it situates within the factory....