TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion in the adjudication order dated 19.01.2018. The period in dispute is from 2012-13 to 2014-15. 2.1 The Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of iron ore concentrates classifiable under Chapter 26 of the Central Excise Tariff on which applicable Central Excise duty is being paid. The Appellant has availed the credit as 'Capital Goods' on various steel items like angle, channels, beams, plates, etc for manufacture of goods to be used in the manufacture of final products. Audit was undertaken by the Central Excise Department and the Appellant explained the usage of above steel items in the manufacture of goods which are installed in the factory. However, the audit team was not satisfied with regard to the availment of credit and subsequ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anufacture the final product. He relied on various decisions of the High Court to support the credit entitlement on the principles of 'user test'. He also submitted that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has completely ignored the utilization statement and has merely relied on the decision of the Tribunal's Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global (Supra) which decision has already been held by the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court to be not a good law. 5. The Ld.A.R. for the Revenue supported the impugned order and prayed that the appeal filed by the assessee be rejected being devoid of merit. 6. I find that the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside the decision of the Tribunal's Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global as reporte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....achinery, i.e., capital goods, it would fall in the definition of 'component' and thus, by logical extension, come within the ambit of 'capital goods'. 43.1 To be noted, Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain, (as he then was), was party to both the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court i.e., Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited as well as Saraswathi Sugar Mills Limited case. 43.2 Therefore, quite clearly, the two judgments referred to above cannot be read in the manner, as the Revenue is seeking to read them, that is, at cross purposes. In our opinion, the ratio of the two judgments, is that, as long as it is shown that the "component" and/or "accessory" is an integral part of the capital goods, (which, in turn, fall within the scope ....