2019 (4) TMI 644

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....alling under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A show-cause notice dated 25.05.2010 was issued to the appellant proposing to recover cenvat credit of Rs. 11,74,731/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Seventy Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty One only) for the period August 2009 wrongly availed on items used for fabrication of structural items which are embedded to the earth in terms of Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act 1944 along with interest and proposal of penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The original authority vide Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2016 allowed cenvat credit of Rs. 10,59,961/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty One....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s further submission that they have furnished the CA certificate certifying the use of the impugned goods. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur reported in 2015 (330) E.L.T. 711 (Tri.-Del.). 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the impugned goods have been used for fabrication of supporting components of capital goods. Further I also find that the appellants have furnished the Chartered Engineer certificate regarding the usage of the said goods. I also note that the said goods have not been used for layi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....items having been used in the manufacture of structurals to support the other machinery, has not also been elaborated with evidence. For e.g., the credit was sought to be denied on steel items used for installation of conveyor system on the ground that these items are merely structures giving support to conveyor system. We find that conveyor system as a whole is rightly categorized as capital goods and unless it is established that certain structures are not part of the conveyor system, mere allegation that certain steel items are only supports will not be sufficient to deny the credit. Similarly, the allegation that silo is merely an item which was for receiving finished product and is not used for processing the goods is misleading and co....