2017 (8) TMI 782

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....riyanka Goel for the appellant and by Ms. Kannu Verma Kumar, Ld. DR have for the Revenue have been heard. 3. The issue involved is entitlement to Cenvat Credit on the items namely Channels, Plates, TMT bars etc. for which appellant has claimed Cenvat credit as inputs as well as capital goods under Rule 2 (k) and Rule 2 (a) (A) of Cenvat Credit of Rules, 2004. The period involved is December 2006 to March, 2009. 4. After having carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions of both sides, it appears that the matter is covered by Tribunal's decisions in cases of CC & CCE., Vishakhapatnam-II V/s APP Mills Ltd. - 2013 (291) ELT 585 (Tri.-Bang.) and Simbhaoli Sugars Ltd. Vs CCE, Meerut-II - 2016 (335) ELT 328 (Tri.-All.), where....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder chapter 85 (other than those falling under heading Nos. 85.09 to 85.13, 85.16 to 85.31, 85.39 and 85.40);   4. ..................   5. Components, spares and accessories of the goods specified against S. Nos. 1 to 4 above;"   The above provision requires to be compared with Rule 2(a) (shorn of unnecessary portions) of the CCR, 2004, reproduced below : "RULE 2. Definitions - In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, - (a) "capital goods" means :- (A) the following goods, namely :- (i) all goods falling under Chapter 82, Chapter 84, Chapter 85, Chapter 90, [heading 6805, grinding wheels and the like, and parts thereof falling under heading 6804] of the First S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the table ibid. This ruling was rendered by applying the "user test". The facts of the present case are perfectly analogous to those of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (supra). It is not in dispute that MS angles, plates, etc., were used to fabricate structural support for machinery which was used for manufacturing excisable goods. It is, again, not in dispute that the machinery is squarely covered by clause (i) of Rule 2(a)(A) of the CCR, 2004. The immediate question is whether the structural support for the machinery could be treated as "capital goods". Indeed, it should be held to be an integral part of the machinery and hence to be covered by clause (i) ibid. If that be so, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesa....