TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 844
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Excise Duty. They have commissioned four Nos. of 100 TPD Sponge Iron Plant. The respondent availed CENVAT credit of duty amount on various Iron Steel items used in the course of setting up of the said Sponge Iron Plants during the period May, 2004 to August, 2004. The dispute in the present appeal relates to eligibility of the respondent to avail duty credit on such items classified under Chapter 72. The Revenue entertained a view that these items cannot be at all categorised as inputs or capital goods in terms of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 and initiated proceedings against the respondent to recover the credits already availed by them. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice dated 7/06/2005 was issued to deny CENVAT Credit of Rs. 1,20,61,289/-.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commr. of C. Ex., Coimbatore Vs. Jawahar Mills Ltd. Reported in 2001 (132) ELT 3 (S.C.), the original authority arrived at these findings. Ld. Counsel also submitted various decided case laws by the Tribunal, High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court,in support of his submissions. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. Only point of dispute in this case is the eligibility of respondent to avail CENVAT credit on various iron and steel items procured by them in connection with setting up of Sponge Iron Plant. We have perused the impugned order which allowed the credit on these items. We note that the usage of these items in various capital goods/parts and components of such capit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be made in the recent decisions of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE-2016-TIOL-2451-CESTAT-DEL and in M/s. Lafarge India Ltd. Vs. CCE[2016-TIOL-2875-CESTAT-DEL]. In Lafarge, the Tribunal observed: 6. We find that apart from the various other case laws relied upon by the appellant as above, the decisions of Hon'ble Madras High Court in India Cements Limited- 2012 (285) ELT 341 (Mad.) -2011-TIOL-558-HC-MAD-CX 2014 (310) ELT 636 (Mad.) -2014-TIOL-1185-HC-MAD-CX and 2014 (305) ELT 558 (Mad.)- 2012-TIOL-1118-HC-MAD-CX all on the same set of facts, though with reference to erstwhile Rule 57Q are also relevant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jayaswal Neco Limited -2015 (319) ELT 247 (SC) allowed cenvat credit on r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ltd. (Supra). A reference can be made to latest decision of the Tribunal in Singhal Enterprises Pvt Ltd. Vs. CC & CE, Raipur vide final order No. 53013/2016 dated 12.08.2016 - 2016-TIOL-2451- CESTAT-DEL. The findings of the Tribunal are as under:- "13. Now we turn to the question, whether credit is admissible on various structural steel items, such as, MS Angles, Sections, Channels, TMT Bar etc., which have been used by the appellants in the fabrication of support structures on which various capital goods are placed ? The same stands denied by the lower authority. The learned DR has sought disallowance of the same by citing the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (Supra) and other judgments. Further, he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judgment, the Apex Court has referred to the use test evolved by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Coimbatore Vs. Jawahar Mills Ltd. 2001 (132) ELT 3 (SC)- 2002-TIOL-87-SC-CX, which is required to be satisfied to find out whether or not particular goods could be said to be capital goods. When be apply the user test to the case in hand, we find that the structural steel items have been used for the fabrication of support structures for capital goods. The appellants have argued that the various capital goods, such as, kiln, material handling conveyor system, furnace etc. cannot be suspended in mid air. They will need to be suitably supported to facilitate smooth functioning of such machines. It is obvious that the structural items have been ....