2018 (1) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is identical and there is a common impugned order, therefore both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The particulars of both the appeals are given herein below: Appeal No. Period Amount Involved Penalty E/26473/2013 May 2008 to September 2009 Rs.42,47,433/- Rs.5,00,000/- E/26474/2013 October 2009 to March 2010 Rs.34,04,067/- Rs.5,00,000/-   4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant are holders of Central Excise Registration for manufacture of Sugar and Molasses falling under Chapter 17 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are availing Cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods and input services under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. During verification of records of the appellant, it was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....authority confirmed the demand raised in respect of four show-cause notices along with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs. 5/- lakh in each appeal. Aggrieved by the said Order-in-Originals, appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner (A), who also rejected the appeals. 5. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without considering all the submissions made by the appellant and without following the binding judicial precedents on the same issue. He further submitted that in the impugned order, the Commissioner (A) has heavily relied upon the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n steel panels used in the manufacture of chimney for DG sets was allowed. 6.2 He further submitted that the capital goods becoming immovable property is irrelevant and the eligibility of credit has to be decided at the stage before becoming part of the immovable goods. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: * CCE vs. ICL Sugar Ltd.: 2011 (271) ELT 360 (Kar.) * CCE vs. M/s. SLR Steel LTd.: 2012 (280) ELT 176 (Kar.) * Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. vs. CCE: 2015 (330) ELT 711 (Tri.-Del.) * Jayaswal Neco Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur: 2015 (319) ELT 247 (SC) * CCE vs. India Cements Ltd.: 2014 (310) ELT 636 (Mad.) 6.3 He further submitted that the decision of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra) does not lay down the correct law an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on No.16/2009-CE dated 7.7.2009 excludes cement, angles, channels, TMT and other items used for construction of factory shed, building or laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods and the same cannot be considered as inputs w.e.f. 7.7.2009. He further submitted that even before the amendment, as per Vandana Global Ltd., input credit on steel is not admissible. He submitted that the storage tank, mill house and pan house boiler are embedded to earth and therefore, cannot be termed as capital goods. 8. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the only issue involved in the present appeals is whether the appellants are entitled to the CENVAT credit....