TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 931
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....given herein below: Sl. No. Appeal No. OIO No. Period Involved Amount Involved 1. E/25241/2013 No.29/2011 (ADC) dated 31.12.2011 April 2004 to July 2007 Rs.38,68,994/- 2. E/25243/2013 No.26/2011 dt. 30.12.2011 February 2008 to January 2009 Rs.49,91,616/- 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturers of excisable goods i.e., pig iron and castings of Central Excise Tariff Act (CETA), 1985 and were availing and utilizing the CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods under CENVAT Credit Rules (CCR), 2004. During the verification of the records of the assessee, the Department noticed that the assessee had availed CENVAT credit on the items like MS angles, plates, chann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned AR and the learned counsel for the assessee. 4. Learned AR for the Revenue submitted that the impugned order allowing the CENVT credit on various items which were used for fabrication of support structure for plant and machinery which are embedded to earth and become immovable property, is not permissible and the assessee has wrongly availed the CENVAT credit on these items which was detected during the course of audit. He further submitted that the impugned items were used for fabrication of hot blast furnace which is embedded in earth and has become immovable property and therefore, the assessee cannot claim CENVAT credit. The learned AR relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Vandana Global Vs. CCE, Raipur reported in 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equirement and do not render all such plants and machinery as immovable property. The plant and machineries fixed to earth for operations are goods and not immovable property. In support of his submission that the plants and machineries fixed to earth are goods and not immovable property. He relied upon the following decisions: • Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad: 1998 (97) ELT 3 (SC) • CCE, Ahmedabad Vs. Solid & Correct Engineering Works: 2010 (252) ELT 481 • Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Vs. CCE: 2005 (190) ELT 301 (Tri.-LB) 5.1 He further submitted that the inputs used for fabrication of capital goods eligible for CENVAT credit even if the resultant goods are fixed to earth and for this submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....um operational efficiency and safety. iv. It can be sold in the market. It would be treated as marketable even though it may have to be removed from its base and dismantled, before being sold. 9. The claim of the appellant which has been explained in the above paragraph is that these manufacturing facilities find place specifically in the Central Excise Tariff. Both blast furnace and coke oven batteries are, without doubt, huge structures whose size is required to cater to the size of operation in a steel plant. The sheer size also indicates that these manufacturing facilities cannot be suspended in mid-air and will need to be adequately supported by means of civil foundation and other civil structures. Consequently, we have to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the impugned order as well as various judgments relied upon by the assessee and also the decision of this Tribunal in the case of JSW Steels Ltd., I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (A) mainly relying upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE Vs. SLR Steels Ltd. (supra) is in accordance with law. Further, it is essential to reproduce the operative findings of the Commissioner (A) recorded in para 9 which is reproduced herein below: "9. Considering the findings of the original authority and submissions made by the appellants, it is noted that the CENVAT credit on these items were disallowed mainly on the ground that t....