TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 986
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red to as assessee and department for sake of convenience. 3. The assessee is engaged in manufacture of MS Billets and TMT barsand is registered with the Central Excise Department. They are availing CENVAT credit of duty paid on their inputs and capital goods. On verification of ER-1 returns, for the period October 2006 to August 2007, it was noticed that the assessee had wrongly availed CENVAT credit under the category of capital goods on items like TMT/CTD bars, HR Plates/sheets, MS channels and MS angles etc. falling under Chapter 72 and 73 of CETA, 1985 which were used in fabricating structures of capital goods. The department was of the view that credit is not eligible on such items and hence show cause Notice No. 134/2007 dated 3.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manufacture of specific capital goods and support structures item-wise to the Range Superintendent so as to verify the genuineness and usage of such items in order to arrive on the quantum of credit admissible. The assessee had in fact submitted such utilisation certificate dated 20.11.2008 before Range Superintendent. However, due to pendency of the appeal, the matter has not so far attained finality. He argued that the MS items etc. were used as support structures for the capital goods and therefore are eligible for credit as per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras laid down in the case of India Cements Ltd. reported in 2015 (321) ELT 208 (Mad.). The ld. Counsel submitted that immediately after being pointed out, the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law. We therefore direct that the Commissioner himself shall verify the utilisation certificate and decide the admissibility of credit on this issue. 8. The appeal filed by the assessee is with regard to the credit availed on items falling under Chapter 87 which has been disallowed to the tune of Rs. 94,530/-. The assessee does not challenge the disallowance of credit and is confining the contest to the penalty of Rs. 90,000/- imposed on this account. It is pleaded that they have reversed the credit immediately. It is also argued that the assessee had availed the credit on bona fide belief that credit is admissible. Since the assessee has revered the credit immediately on being pointed out, we are of the considered opinion that the pena....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on MS items which are used as support structures of capital goods for the reason that after such fabrication, they become embedded to the earth and are in the nature of immovable property. Relying upon the decision in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. reported in 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri. LB), the department has denied the credit availed. 11. On behalf of the assessee, ld. Counsel submitted that the period involved in all the appeals except E/442/2011 is prior to 7.7.2009. The amendment to the definition of inputs was brought forth by adding an Explanation to the said definition only with effect from 7.7.2009. That therefore the credit availed on such items which were used for fabrication of support structures is admissible. He submitted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tc. used for fabrication and erection of structural support of capital goods. The demand has been confirmed mainly relying upon the decision in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra). The said decision was rendered without referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. (supra). In a later decision, the jurisdictional High Court in the case of India Cements (supra) as well as in the case of thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd. has held that credit is admissible on MS items, HR sheets etc. used for fabrication of capital goods / structural supports of capital goods. 16. Another issue is whether the credit is admissible on welding electrodes and tubes and pipes. The very same issue was consi....