2017 (5) TMI 35

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the respondent during the period 2006-2007 to 2009 - 2010 (October 2009). The respondent entered to an agreement on 28.08.2008 with M/s Inertial Iron & Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd (IISIPL) on 23.12.2006 for construction of 3 lakh MT Bar Mill within the respondent's factory premises. A further agreement was entered into with M/s IISIPL by which M/s IISIPL would enhance the installed capacity of Rolling Mill to 4 lakh MT and would retain the ownership theirof. This Rolling Mill would be leased to the respondent on payment of monthly fee. Further, another lease agreement dated 11.07.2008 was entered between IISIPL and the respondent by which the Sinter Plant-II was also leased. For commissioning of mills, several orders were placed by M/s IISIP....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as Shri B.L. Narsimhan, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent. 4. The main ground for seeking disallowance of Cenvat credit of about Rs. 28 crores was that M/s IISIPL is not a Finance Company but is engaged in industrial operation. Rule 4(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules allows Cenvat credit of capital goods if such capital goods are acquired or leased from a Finance Company. The Cenvat credit was disallowed on the ground that M/s. IISIPL is not a finance company. However, in the impugned order the ld. Commissioner has taken the view that ownership is irrelevant to decide the admissibility of credit. He held that the goods were procured by M/s IISIPL but since these were consigned to the respondent; they will be entitled to the credit M/s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spondent in terms of orders of the Hon'ble High Court of the Bombay w.e.f. 31.03.2008. We find that a similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the respondent's own case in respect of capital goods acquired on lease basis for another part of the respondent's factory. He relied upon the case of Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur, 2016 (332) ELT 885 (Tri.-Delhi). On identical facts the Tribunal as held as follows: "6. The main point for decision is as to whether Cenvat credit availed by the appellant on various capital goods acquired on lease basis from other two entities involved in manufacturing activity is correctly taken or not. The Revenue's contention is that in terms of Rule 4(3) Cenvat credit in respect of capital ....