TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 475
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... purpose or repairs do not fall under the definition of inputs nor do they fall under the category of Capital Goods as per the Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. On adjudication, out of total demand, demand of Rs. 1,71,26,939/- was dropped and demand of Rs. 21,40,371/- was confirmed with interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, both Revenue and assessee are in appeal. 02. Shri R. Subramanyam, Learned Advocate on behalf of the assessee submits that said materials have been used for maintenance and repair of the plant and machinery and capital goods within the factory. As regard the use of impugned goods Joint Memorandum /Verification report, was drawn Jointly by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Gandhidham and the DGM (Excise) of the assessee, at the factory premises. Based on the said Joint Verification Report. Learned Commissioner had passed the impugned order and allowed the Cenvat Credit. The Department in their grounds of Appeal has not challenged the Joint Verification Report which is the basis of factual verification and the bona fide grounds on which the cenvat credit was allowed. He relied upon the said verification report and pray th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CCE, Rajkot- 2007(8)S.T.R. 498 (Tri. Ahmd.) • M/s Hemnil Metal Processors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune -I- 2010 (261) ELT 429 (Tri.- Mumbai) 03. Shri Dharmendra Kanjani, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of Revenue reiterated the findings of the Learned Commissioner on the items whereunder the credit was denied. However, on the goods on which the Learned Commissioner has allowed the credit, the Ld. AR reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that the adjudicating authority has found that the materials under dispute had been used within the factory of manufacture for the purpose of plant and capital goods and same qualify as inputs in terms of Explanation 2 to Rule 2 (k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. As per the said explanation only such goods which are used in the manufacture of capital goods which are further used in the factory of the manufacture, fall within the ambit of 'input'. Whereas, in the instant case it has been found that the materials under dispute have been used in the factory of manufacturer for the purpose of maintenance of plant/ capital goods and for the purpose of plant and capital goods. The materials used for the purpose of repa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of the Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Ambuja Cement Eastern v. CCE, Raipur [2010 (256) E.L.T. 690 (Chhattisgarh)] and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore v. Alfred Herbert (India) Ltd. [2010 (257) E.L.T. 29 (Kar.)].Therefore, in the present matter Ld. Commissioner has rightly allowed the cenvat credit of Rs. 1,71,26,939/ -. 4.1 The disputed items in question are also claimed to have been used for repairs/maintenance of capital goods by way of replacement of old/worn out parts/components of such capital goods. This factual position is to be seen through the verification reports. However, the revenue has proceeded on the premise that the disputed items were used for fabricating/manufacturing of capital goods. If this finding is presumed to be correct for a moment, then there is a prima facie case for holding that the disputed items were used in the manufacture of capital goods and, hence, by virtue of the aforesaid Explanation to the definition given under Rule 2(k), disputed items could be considered as "inputs". We hold that the credit is admissible on the disputed goods in question. 4.2 We find that Learned Commissioner has denied ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... factory of the appellant company for manufacture of excisable goods, to that extent, the input duty credit would not be admissible in view of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Solaris Chemtech Ltd. [2007 (214) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.)]. However, for determining the quantum of input duty credit, which would be inadmissible on this ground, the matter would have to be remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority. 4.4 In Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar reported in 2007 (219) E.L.T. 960 (Tri.-Del.), the Tribunal also held that mere location of capital goods outside the factory premises is no ground for denying the credit. In the present matter impugned goods were used in the erection of transmission towers installed from the power plant to the factory of appellant for bringing the electricity, the said electricity undisputedly used in the factory premises of the Appellant for manufacturing their final product which has been cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, relying on the case laws cited by the appellant in their own case, in the matter of M/s Sanghi Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Rajkot supra are squarely applicable to the fact....