2018 (3) TMI 1478

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....padhyay, Supdt. (AR) for the Appellant 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al Ltd Vs. C.C.E, Raipur, 2010 (253) ELT 440 ( Tri-LB). 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....injector building, kiln electrical cable trench, ESP ducting, silos for 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, Visakhapatn....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....de by the Appellant. This by itself will not suffice. As laid out in the 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 ....