TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 384
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Cenvat credit in respect of 111 numbers of disputed items. 26 Nos. of items were used for construction of steel structure of the factory shed. In the appeal memo in para 14 of the facts of the appeal, the appellants conceded that an amount of Rs. 4,70,801/- in respect of items which are used for construction of steel structure of factory shed is not contested by them. The revenue may verify this fact and in case if the credit has not been reversed on these 26 items, then it is recoverable. Learned counsel submits that the other disputed items have all gone into the manufacture of capital goods. He further submits that this very issue pertaining to the subsequent period came up for consideration before this Bench and thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s or that it falls under one of the specified item. He has held that in the present case, general use of structural items classifiable under Chapter 72 & 76 are definitely not identifiable as parts accessories and components of capital goods falling under Chapter 82, 84, 85, 90 heading 6802 and sub-heading 6801.10" and with above observations he has upheld the denial of credit and payment of the same. The appellants are aggrieved over the impugned order. 2. Shri V.B. Gaikwad, learned advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri Anil Kumar learned JDR appeared for the revenue. The learned advocate urged the following points. (1) Shri Gaikwad pointed out that the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise Belgaum ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(12) Divi's Laboratories Ltd. v. CCE - 2006 (196) E.L.T. 285 (T) = (73) RLT 255 (13) Ispat Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 2006 (195) E.L.T. 164 (14) CCE v. India Cement Ltd. [2004 (175) E.L.T. 476 (Tribunal) = 2004 (64) RLT 63] (15) Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (64) RLT 732 (3) In the light of the above decisions, the appellants are rightly entitled for modvat credit on capital goods. (4) In a catena of decisions, it is laid down that when an item on which the assessee has availed credit is not falling within the definition of capital goods but is falling within the definition of inputs then, the credit therein is not deniable to the assessee. The following decisions are relied on:- (a) CCE v. Modi Rubber Ltd. - 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellants in the fabrication of the following sugar manufacturing equipment and structures: (i) juice clarifier (ii) bagasse handling system (iii) various tanks (iv) sugar elevators (v) sugar hoppers (vi) cane carrier (vii) boiler (viii) bagasse carrier (ix) power house panel board structure The appellants have cited large number of case laws in their support. This bench in the case of Divis Laboratories v. CCE Visak [2006 (73) RLT-255] has held that various technological structures used for supporting machinery are entitled for modvat credit. In the case of Ramala Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. [2006 (196) E.L.T. 285 (Tribunal) = 2006 (77) RLT 251] Channels Joists etc., used in the construction of supporting st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e classified under Chapter 72 which deals with general structure items. He noted that they are not in the nature of specifically manufactured structures for housing machinery such as storage tank, material handling equipments etc. He submits that they had produced enormous evidence to show that the items had gone into the manufacture of sugar manufacturing equipment and structures and they have become part and parcel of the machinery and in view of the cited judgments noted in the Final Order No. 49/07, they are eligible for the credit. He points out that the previous order pertains to the period June 04 to December 04 while in the present case the period is from July 01 to March 04. He submits that the facts are identical and appeal is req....