AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 601
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le commissioning its unit in July, 2009 had availed Cenvat credit on the items procured namely Beam, MS Angle, MS Channel, Joint and MS Bars which are falling under Chapter 72 which were used to provide support to the Boiler and other machinery for manufacture of pulp. As a precautionary measure, the appellant notified the department vide its letter dt.8/5/2009 as to the fact of its availing 50% of the Cenvat credit on the steel material which are used for erection of Plant & Machinery. It is the case of the appellant that it has been availing cenvat credit by filing monthly returns regularly which were also being regularly scrutinized by the Range Officers / Divisional Officers, as the case may be. According to the appellant, the Internal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nded period of limitation, when the show cause notice came to be issued nearly 5 years after the appellant voluntarily brought to the notice of the revenue as to the availment of Cenvat credit. On merits, it is the case of the Ld.Counsel that the recent decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars Vs CESTAT, Chennai, 2017 (355) E.L.T.373 (Mad.) is squarely applicable and therefore, on both the counts the appeal is required to be allowed. 3. Per contra, the Ld.AR, Sh.R.Subramaniyan supported the findings of the lower authorities. According to him, the appellant's action in notifying the department in 2009 may not be having any consequence, since the department would not initiate any action based on such in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....took me through the questions of law urged before the Hon.High Court which is at paragraph 4.1 and specifically to question which relates to the issue on hand i.e. question No.4. For convenience, all the 4 questions are extracted below : "i. Whether the order of the Tribunal is right in law inasmuch as it gives effect to the Notification No.16/2009 prior to 7.7.2009, overlooking the fact that the same is made expressly effective only from the aforesaid date? ii. Whether the order of the Tribunal placing reliance on Vandana Global to disallow the claim of Cenvat on M.S.Plates, M.S.Angles and M.S.Joint is unsustainable in view of the fact that it has lost its value as a precedent in view of the contrary view expressed by the Supreme Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue in the context of Rule 57Q was of the view that certain capital goods were made eligible for grant of Modvat credit, based on classification, while components and spares of such capital goods were granted the same benefit based on description. For capital goods to be eligible for Modvat credit, they had to fall within the ambit of the chapters indicated in the Rule. This was so, as their eligibility to avail Modvat credit was based on classification. Insofar as components, spares and accessories were concerned, their eligibility for grant of credit was pivoted on description, there being no reference to any chapters. Therefore, components, spares and accessories of capital goods, which fell within the specified chapters were also enti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the plant and machinery could be treated as inputs, within the meaning of Rule 2(k) of the 2004 Rules, for the period prior to its issuance, i.e., 7-7-2009. 29. Therefore, besides anything else, what clearly comes to fore is that the `various Division Bench of this Court have consistently ruled in favour of different assessees in holding that structurals, which are used to keep in position plant and machinery and, cement, as also, iron and steel, which are used to erect foundations, which, in turn, hold the plant and machinery could, not only be treated as 'capital goods', but could also be treated as 'inputs'. The Hon.court was thus pleased to conclude that there was no good reason to take a different view. 6. The Hon.Court in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as an accessory. As a matter of fact, in Saraswathi Sugar Mills case, the Court, while noticing the view taken in Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited said that as long as it could be shown that the item in issue was an integral part of the machinery, i.e., capital goods, it would fall in the definition of 'component' and thus, by logical extension, come within the ambit of 'capital goods'. 7. Admittedly the facts involved in the case on hand is clear from the Order-In-Original as specifically narrated by the adjudicating authority at page 2, paragraph 1.1 and 1.2 of his order. This, infact, has been reaffirmed by the Ld.Commissioner (Appeals) at page 2 paragraph 2 of his order. Thus, going by the above factual assertions of bot....