2017 (10) TMI 745

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... steel items used in the fabrication of Storage Tanks, such as Iron Ore Ground Hopper, Coal Ground Hopper, Stock Bin for Iron Ore, Coal & Dolomite, Finished Product Storage Bin and Pollution Control Equipments such as Bag Filter, Gas Conditioning Tower (GCT) & Chimney Pipe, ESP Hopper, Hopper Platform, HT duct during the period October 2005 to November 2005 and February 2005 to March 2005. The dispute in the present appeal relates to eligibility of the respondent to avail duty credit on such items classified under chapter 73. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of Rs. 27,27,456/- alongwith interest and imposed equal penalty. On appeal, ld.Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the assesee. Aggrieved by this order, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of M/s.Vanadana Global Ltd. which as per the said Authority has categorically denied input credit on the items consumed in making supporting structures of various capital goods or consumed in making such capital-assets ; and thus the ratio of the aforesaid case clearly makes the denial of cenvat-credit of the said items of iron & steel. However, in terms of the position as laid down in various quasi-judicial/judicial forums cited at para 5.5 and 5.6, the test to be applied in the impugned matter is whether, without the impugned structural materials, the said machinery/capital goods could be erected and be made functional at all. It is obvious that the impugned structures cannot be self standing and would require some support and anchoring....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act, 1985 supporting structures are nothing but parts and accessories of the production machineries falling under Ch.84/85. 5.10 As seen above, the Adjudicating Authority has invoked certain quasi-judicial/judicial position to reject the impugned claims made by the Appellant. This will not suffice by itself. As laid out in the rulings cited in para 5.5 and 5.6 above, facts have to distinguished and applied to the impugned facts and circumstances of each case. I do not see any such findings in the impugned Order in Original, that distinguish the impugned items and establish that their usage was not essential to the functioning of the impugned Capital goods and are merely a structure for support or material used for support or embedd....