2017 (3) TMI 223

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f CENVAT Credit under capital goods for the period 27.12.2005 to 30.06.2010 for an amount of Rs. 3,74,879/-. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty. The appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and vide the order impugned herein the Commissioner (Appeals) uphold the same. Hence this appeal. 2.  On behalf of the appellant, the Ld. Counsel Sh. V.J. Sankaram submitted that the MS items were used for fabrication of components/parts/accessories of capital goods and therefore falls within the definition of capital goods. That the impugned items when used for fabrication of capital goods would fall within the definition of capital goods ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Chennai [2015 (321) ELT 209 (Mad)] the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has held that MS items used for support structures as well as for fabrication of parts, components and accessories is eligible for credit. It was also argued that the appellants have not suppressed any facts and the details of the MS items used for Fabrication of capital goods was available from the records maintained by the appellant. 3. Against this the Ld AR Sh. M.Chandra Bose reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He adverted to para 18 and 19 of the impugned order and submitted that the said items do not fall within the definition of either inputs or capital goods and therefore the disallowance of credit is just and proper. That the appellants have not....