TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1478
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Shri Govinda Ch. Sahu, Consultant for the Respondent ORDER Per Shri P. K. Choudhary Briefly stated the facts of the case are that - The Respondent Assessee is engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron classifiable under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2. The Assessee availed Cenvat Credit on C R Coil, HR Coil, MS Flats etc. by treating them as Capital goods during the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 6. For the proper appreciation of the case, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below: "5.10. I would note the Adjudicator relies on the verification report of the JRO that the impugned items are merely support structures, working platform of general purpose structures are fabricated or assembled by welding in such a way that these are neither movable nor easy to dismantle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r ESP etc. cannot be self standing and would require some support structural items for them to function. It is also clear that the above items do have a function and are part of the manufacturing processes carried on by the Appellant. I would note that the Hon ble Tribunal in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Visakhapatnam Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 2016 (338) E.L.T 308 (Tri.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he rulings cited in Para 5.7 and 5.8 above, facts have to distinguished and applied to the impugned facts and circumstances of each case. I am not convinced by the arguments put forth by the Adjudicating Authority that impugned items would not be classifiable as capital goods or components, of the capital goods. In light of the same, I do not find the action of the Adjudicating Authority in reject....