2017 (1) TMI 1180

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....31,73,871/- on MS channels, angles, plates, sheets, HR coils, sheets, bars etc. during the period August 2007 to March 2010 under the category of capital goods. A show-cause notice dt. 08/10/2010 was issued proposing to disallow the credit and also for recovery of the same along with interest and proposing to impose equal amount of penalty. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty. Being aggrieved, the appellants approached the Commissioner(Appeals) who upheld the disallowance of credit, as well as the order confirming demand, interest and penalty passed by the original authority. Hence the appellants are now before the Tribunal. 3.1. On behalf of the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ll as for fabrication of capital goods such as tanks, tubes, pipe fittings. Authorities below have denied the credit contending that the MS items are used for support structure and the support structures being attached to the earth, they became immovable property and therefore the credit cannot be allowed. The learned counsel relied upon the recent judgment of Delhi Tribunal in Ultratech Ltd Vs. CCE, Indore [2016-TIOL-3000-CESTAT-DEL] wherein the Tribunal has discussed in detail that the MS items when used for fabrication of support structures of capital goods and when such capital goods are fixed to the earth as support structures, they do not attain character of immovable property. He also relied upon the decision laid in the case of Indi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it was the contention of the appellant that they had used the impugned goods in the fabrication of supporting structures, technical structurals, parts of capital goods used in the factory of manufacture and hence were eligible for taking credit on such items in view of the explanation given under Rule 2(k) of CCR and also following various decision in this regard. They also contended that these structures were not embedded to earth as was held by the original authority in the impugned order. 6. It has to be mentioned that the Department does not dispute the receipt of the MS items into the factory. They also do not have any case that the MS items received into the factory were diverted in any manner. The main allegation is that the appel....