TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 1358
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner disallowed the cenvat credit of Rs. 69,18,905/- along with interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of cenvat credit. Hence, the appellant filed this appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 4. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the appellant had taken a stand that these items were used for the expansion of the plant for constructing the equipment and machinery for production of excisable goods. The adjudicating authority observed that they have neither provided the chapter heading for the equipment nor submitted any evidence so as to classify them as components or accessories of capital goods to make these impugned items eligible for cenvat credit. It is noticed from the adjudication order that the appellant submitted photographs that they have constructed equipment for coolers, DSC & ABC, Product Bin (House), RMHS, Kiln inlet building, Kiln cooler transfer building, etc. The Com (A) denied the credit on the ground that these are in the nature of immovable goods and thus, parts of the plant and not capital goods in itself. 5. The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the eligibility of cenvat credit on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r and maintenance purpose were also held to be cenvatable. Similarly, in the case of Hindustan Zinc Limited v. Union of India, 2008 (228) E.L.T. 517 (Raj.), the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan allowed the Cenvat credit on the welding electrodes. By following said decision, we hold that the appellants are entitled to the credit on welding electrodes considering them as "Inputs". 13. Now we turn to the question, whether credit is admissible on various structural steel items, such as, MS Angles, Sections, Channels, TMT Bar, etc., which have been used by the appellants in the fabrication of support structures on which various capital goods are placed? The same stands denied by the lower authority. The learned DR has sought disallowance of the same by citing the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (supra) and other judgments. Further, he has brought to our notice and emphasized the amendment carried out in Explanation-II to Rule 2(a) which defines the term "Input" w.e.f. 7-7-2009. It has further been pleaded that the Cenvat credit claimed for the period prior to this will be covered within the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plated under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, hence will be entitled to the Cenvat credit." In the case of M/s Lafarge India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Tribunal allowed the Cenvat credit on steel items which were used in the fabrication of capital goods and its accessories inside the manufacturing premises. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugars Vs.CESTAT, Chennai (supra) allowed the cenvat credit on MS structures which support plant and machinery and cement and steel which were used in the erection of foundation that holds the plant machinery terming it as an essential element of the plant and machinery. The relevant portion is reproduced: "41.3 Therefore, to our minds, contrary to what Ms. Hemalatha has stated, the decision in the Saraswathi Sugar Mill's case would be distinguishable, as it dealt with an exemption notification. 42. On the other hand, Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mill's case, in our view, is the more opposite case, which can be applied to the matters at hand. The Court, in the said case was called upon to rule as to whether the assessee in that case could avail of Modvat credit in respect of steel plates and MS channels, i.e.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances if any of these goods is used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any change in the substance for the manufacture of final product, although this view was expressed in the light of the aforenoted definition of "capital goods" in the said Rule, which is not there in Rule 57Q, as applicable in the instant case, yet the "user test" evolved in the judgment, which is required to be satisfied to find out whether or not particular goods could be said to be capital goods, would apply on all fours to the facts of the present case, in fact, in para 6 of the said judgment, the court noted the stand of the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Revenue, to the effect that the question whether an item falls within the purview of "capital goods" would depend upon the user it is put to. Applying the "user test" 13. on the facts in hand, we have no hesitation in holding that the steel plates and M.S. channels, used in the fabrication of chimney would fall within the ambit of "capital goods" as contemplated in Rule 57Q. It is not the case of the Revenue that both these items are not required to be used in the....