TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 967
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailed Cenvat Credit on cement and steel materials used for foundation of machinery. She argued that the matter is covered by the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Thiru Arooran Sugar 2017 (355) ELT 373 (Mad.). She further pointed out that the decision of Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri.-LB) which held that credit of such items is not admissible has been set aside by Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in Tax Appeal 59/2011. She also relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Mudra Ports & Special Zone Ltd. vs. CCE & Cus. 2015 (39) S.T.R. 726 (Guj.) wherein it was held that credit on cement and steel used in the construction of new jetties and other commerci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... if the same cement is used in the construction of a foundation for a boiler it is covered. Thus in each case the facts could be different and so are the decisions. 14.In the present case it was pleaded before the Commissioner that angles, channels plats etc on which credit is sought to be denied were structural items for machinery required to make the machines function without any vibration or movement. If that were to be the case these items cannot be termed as material used in the construction of a building. The Commissioner has not negated this plea but simply held that the material in question are used in the construction of the plant and therefore are not covered under Rule 57Q. This finding of the Commissioner without any evidence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arat in the case of Mudra Ports and Special Economic Zone (supra) while allowing credit on cement and steel used in the construction of jetties. Jetty is used to provide port service and under that circumstance, it is a capital good directly used for the provision of services. In this regard, the observation of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jawahar Mills while interpreting the Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules is relevant. In para 4,5&6 of the said decision following has been absorbed. "4.The aforesaid definition of 'Capital goods' is very wide. Capital goods can be machines, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus, tools or appliances. Any of these goods if used for producing or processing of any goods or for bringing about any ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s". The off-site plants were held to be part of the process of the manufacture of urea. Relying upon the phraseology used in the exemption notification, it was held that there was no good reason why the exemption should be limited to the raw naphtha used for producing urea that is utilized directly in the urea plant since the notification only required that the ammonia should be used in the manufacture of fertilizers and not that it should be used directly in the manufacture of fertilizers. The Court said that: "The exemption notification must be so construed as to give due weight to the liberal language it uses. The ammonia used in the water treatment, steam generation and inert gas generation plants, which are a necessary part of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt of the cable which is used only for lights and fans would not so qualify. We have no difficulty in accepting the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General that, under these circumstances, user will determine whether an item qualifies or not the requirement of clause 1(a). However, in the present cases this aspect has no relevance. It was not the case of the revenue at any stage before the authorities that an item does not satisfy the requirement of 'Capital goods' within the meaning of the Rule on the ground of its user as it now sought to be urged by the learned counsel. The case of the revenue has all through been that the items in question per se are not 'Capital goods' within the meaning of the expression as defined in E....