2018 (12) TMI 547

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ss Pipes. 2.1 Entertaining a doubt that the above goods on which the appellant had availed CENVAT Credit were capital goods ineligible for such Credit, a Show Cause Notice dated 13.07.2016 was issued inter alia on the ground that the goods in question were used in the new unit established in the other place and not in the appellant's manufacturing unit; that the above goods were used only as a supporting structure for the working platform; that the goods in question were not covered in the listing under Tariff Heading A(i) of the definition of "capital goods", nor were they covered under Tariff Heading A(iii), nor were they inputs, etc., and thereby demanding a duty of Rs. 25,10,716/- being the ineligible CENVAT Credit together with approp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y at the manufacturing unit and this has been held so by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Bangalore-I Vs. ECOF Industries Pvt. Ltd. - 2011 (271) E.L.T. 58 (Kar.). Thus, there can be no denial citing this reason as long as the Revenue does not dispute the existence of the new unit relating to the appellant's manufacturing business. 7. During the course of hearing, Ld. Advocate pointed out that there is no requirement under the statute to obtain a separate registration for the new unit as has been held by various High Courts. He also pointed out that the impugned goods which are used as support structures have been held to be eligible by this very Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....inputs (MS channels etc.) as they were used for fabrication of support structures for the reason that without such support structures the manufacturing activity cannot be carried out as they become integral part of the machineries after fabrication. Thus, the decision relied upon the ld. AR in Tower Vision India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case." 8. Per contra, Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s. Rathi Steels and Power Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2015 (328) E.L.T. 9 (Allhd.). In this case, the Hon'ble High Court observed that the appellant therein was unable to produce any supporting evidence in spite of giving full opportunities and for la....