TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 819
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,898 alleged to have been wrongly availed was confirmed along with interest and equivalent penalty. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Appellant is engaged in the manufacture and clearance of dutiable goods from its factory at Haldia, West Bengal, operating under the Cenvat Credit Scheme. Pursuant to an audit objection, proceedings were initiated against the Appellant alleging irregular availment of Cenvat credit of Rs. 3,00,47,898/- on Cement and Steel items such as Angles, Channels, Joist etc. classifiable under Chapter 72/73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act (in short, disputed items) as capital goods, during the relevant period from 2010-11 to 2012-13. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the entire demand proposed in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtificate dated 1 June 2015 from the Chartered Engineer, M/s. Associated Services. The adjudicating authority has not refuted the certificate of the chartered engineer in any manner and in the absence of any contrary evidence, the Certificate of the expert could not have been disregarded in view of the following decisions: - • Rav S. Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCCE & ST, Guntur - 2018 (363) ELT 468 (para 7); • Inter Continental Vs. UOI - 2003 (154) ELT 37 (para 19); • M/s. Harinagar Sugar Mills Vs. CCE & ST, Patna - 2019 (9) TMI 1378 (c) That the total purchase of the disputed items during the period from 2010-11 to 2012-13 was substantially higher but the Appellant had refrained from availing any cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Heard both sides through video conferencing and perused the appeal records. 6. We find that the following two issues arise for our consideration in this appeal. (i) Whether the disputed capital goods credit of Rs. 3,00,47,898/- availed during the period from 2010-11 to 2012-13 was entirely in respect of cement and steel items classifiable under Chapter 72/73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. (ii) Whether Cenvat credit on cement and steel items is not available in the instant case in view of Explanation 2 to the definition of inputs inserted with effect from 7 July 2009. 7. In so far as issue No. (i) is concerned, we find that no item-wise break up has been provided for the year 2011-12 and 2012-13 as is eviden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for the purposes specifically excluded in Explanation 2 to the definition of inputs. The Appellant had placed a Certificate dated 1 June 2015 from the Chartered Engineer, M/s. Associated Services in support of their contention that the disputed items were used in the fabrication of the storage tanks within the factory premises. The adjudicating authority has not disputed the said Certificate from an expert and does not disclose any basis either to come to the conclusion that the disputed items were used for the specifically excluded purposes. Infact, no independent enquiry has been made by the adjudicating authority while blindly following the contested audit objection for the period 2010-11. We find force in the contention of the Appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... factory shed, building or laying of foundation or making of structures for support of capital goods." 8. Therefore, the notification of the Legislature is very clear that it is only the ''inputs'' used in the manufacture or construction of capital goods which is construed as input and cenvat credit is available on the duty paid in purchase of such inputs. If the cement, angles, channels, Centrally Twister Deform bar (C.T.D.) or Thermo Mechanically Treated bar (T.M.T.) and other items are used in the construction of factory shed, building or laying of foundation, the duty paid on such items the assessee would not be entitled to cenvat credit. Similarly, though the assessee is entitled to cenvat credit of cement and steel used in th....