TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 179
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. 2.The appeal was admitted, on 17.07.2014, on the following substantial questions of law:- "1.Whether the order of the Tribunal placing reliance on Vandana Global to disallow the claim of CENVAT on M.S.Angles, M.S.Joint Beams and TOR Steel is unsustainable in view of the fact that it has lost its value as a precedent in view of the contrary view expressed by the Supreme Court in Central Excise, Jaipur, vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., case; and 2.Whether the respondents are right in disallowing credit on M.S.Angles, M.S.Joint Beams and TOR Steel on the ground that they do not qualify as capital goods inasmuch as it is contrary to the decision of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uestions of law were sought to be raised for consideration: "(i) Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself and thereby fell into an error in holding that CENVAT credit is admissible on the capital goods which were not specified in the Rule 2(a)(A) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004? (being contrary to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Vikram Cement Vs. CCE, Indore reported in 2005 (187) ELT 145 SC. [Appeal (Civil) No. 1197/2005 dated 24/8/2005]? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that CENVAT credit is admissible on Construction materials (viz., Cement, MS Angles, MS Plates, MS Channels and HR Sheets etc), which are used for civil construction activity as "Capital Goods" eligible for CENVAT Credit in terms of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nue to apply. The decision in Commissioner of Central Excise v. J.K.Udaipur Udyog Limited (supra) holding to the contrary is, in our opinion, not good law. The reference is answered accordingly. All the appeals and special leave petitions will now be listed for being disposed of in the light of this judgment." 4. Thus following the said judgment, the Madras High Court, in at least four cases of the Assessee has decided that Cenvat Credit in respect of capital goods like Structural Steel items like M.S.Plates, Angles, Channels and HR Sheets used for civil construction activity/ erection of machineries shall be allowed under the Cenvat Rules, 2004. 5. In our considered opinion, the matter is no longer res integra and the lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erials placed before this Court. 8. Even though Learned Standing counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the judgment in the assessee's own case reported in AIT-2011-358-HC = 2012 (285) E.L.T. 341 (Mad.) (The Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. India Cements Limited) had been appealed against, as of today, there are no details; in any event, the fact, herein is that the Revenue does not controvert the facts found by the Assistant Commissioner that the impugned goods were used for fabrication of structurals to support various machines like crusher, kiln, hoppers, pre-heaters conveyor system, etc. and that without these structurals, the machinery could not be erected and would not function. 9. In the decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aving regard to the meaning of the expression "components/ parts", with reference to the particular industry in question, the Apex Court rejected the appeal filed by the assessee. 11. Thus going by the factual finding, which are distinguishable from the facts found by the Authorities below in the case on hand, we have no hesitation in rejecting the Revenue's appeal, thereby confirming the order of the Tribunal. 12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue pointed out that, the Tribunal had merely passed a cryptic order by referring to the earlier decisions. We do not think that this would in any manner prejudice the case of the Revenue, given the fact that on the identical set of facts, the assessee's own....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of this Court in C.M.A.No.3101 of 2005, dated 13-12-2012 and C.M.A.No.1265 of 2014, dated 10.7.2014, we are inclined to allow the appeal, thereby set aside the order of the Tribunal. Accordir1gly, this civil miscellaneous appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.' 7. Respectfully following the three Honble High Court decisions in the appellant's own case cited supra, and also maintaining this Tribunal's order in the case of Dalmia Cements (Bharath) Ltd. Vs CCE Trichy (supra), holding that immovability is not a criteria for denial of Cenvat Credit, we hold that appellants are eligible for Cenvat Credit on the capital goods used in "Dry Process Cement Manufacturing Plant". Accordingly,....