TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 158
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd to impose penalty on the ground that they have availed credit on various Iron & Steel items like M.S. Angle, Channels, Joist, Beams, Bar etc., which are neither used in the manufacture of final products nor were used for manufacture of capital goods. The Adjudicating Authority disallowed the Cenvat Credit together with interest and imposed penalty. By the impugned order, the Commissioner(Appeals) set aside the Adjudication order. Hence, Revenue filed this appeal. 2. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 3. The Adjudicating Authority observed that these items were used in the civil construction and would not qualify to be capital goods as per definition under the Rules, 2004. The ld.AR strongly relied upon the decision of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ture of these four machineries. Therefore, in terms of Explanation 2 to rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, these angles, channels, beams etc. which have been used towards the manufacture of capital goods are nothing but inputs'. Accordingly, the appellant had correctly availed the credit of the duty paid on these items." 5. It is contended by the Revenue that the photograph submitted at the time of hearing before the Adjudicating Authority, the respondent not only fabricated these items, but also fabricated structural support to embed these machines on the ground. In any event, the Revenue had not disputed the verification report as relied upon by the Commissioner(Appeals). I find that the evidence of photograph cannot prevail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ystems, Re-actor cooling system etc.. It is categorically stated that these plant & machinery are movable in nature in view of its installation can easily be separated. Therefore, the Notification No.16/2009-CE(NT) dated 07.07.2009 (supra) would not hit the present case. 8. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mundra Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd. v. CCE & Customs [2015-TIOL-1288-HC-AHD-ST] observed, in respect of the decision of the Tribunal in Vandana Global Ltd. (supra), as under :- "8. Mr. Y.N. Ravani, learned counsel for the Revenue has placed reliance on the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Vandana Global Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, 2010 (253) E.L.T. 440. We have carefully gone t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dded in earth must be treated as immovable property is basically not sound. It has been held as under:- "4. In view of this finding of fact, it is not possible to hold that the machinery assembled and erected by the appellant at its factory site was immovable property as something attached to earth like a building or a tree. The Tribunal has pointed out that it was for the operational efficiency of the machine that it was attached to earth. If the appellant wanted to sell the paper making machine it could always remove it from its base and sell it. 5. Apart from this finding of fact made by the Tribunal, the point advanced on behalf of the appellant, that whatever is embedded in earth must be treated as immovable property is basically n....