2008 (10) TMI 177

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed Advocates appeared on behalf of the appellants and Ms. Joy Kumari Chander, learned Jt. CDR for the Revenue. 3. We heard both the sides. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether the inputs which are used in the manufacture of 'Clinker Silo' which are used in the appellant's factory for storage are entitled for Cenvat credit. The appellants had taken Cenvat credit on the Steel plates, sheets, etc. used in the manufacture of 'clinker silo' which are actually storage tank for the final products in the cement factory. They had taken Cenvat credit. Revenue proceeded against the appellants on the ground that taking such Cenvat credit is irregular. Proceedings were initiated against them. The reasoning of the Commissioner is that the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ltd. [2004 (176) E.L.T. 899 (Tri.-Mum.)] (vi) CCE, Belgaum v. Industrial Oxygen Co. Ltd. [2004 (175) E.L.T. 907] (vii) M/s. Industrial Oxygen Co. Ltd. v. CCE & C, Vadodara [2002 (150) E.L.T. 751 (Tri.-Mum.)] (viii) M/s. Wockhardt Ltd. v. CCE & C, Aurangabad[2003 (160) E.L.T. 1091 (Tri.-Mum.)] (ix) CCE & C, Mumbai-II v. Adarsh Inds. Ltd. [2004 (166) E.L.T. 466 (Tri.-Mum.)] (x) CCE, Trichy v. India Cements Ltd. [2004 (175) E.L.T. 476 (Tri.-Chennai)]. 5. On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that the appellants used duty paid inputs for fabrication of 'clinker silos'. According to the appellants, the silos are nothing but storage tanks and they are specified in the definition of capital goods. They also invit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ason to give Cenvat credit. One need not examine whether such silos are duty paid or not. That is not the point at issue. The silos may be dutiable or may not be dutiable under certain conditions. The Revenue has taken the point that they are immovable. Therefore they are not dutiable. Hence the credit can be denied. That is not the correct approach. In other words, the dutiability of the capital goods is irrelevant. So long as the inputs are used in capital goods which are used within the factory of production, input credit has to be given in terms of Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k). In other words, the said capital goods may be dutiable and if the duty is paid on such capital goods then the appellants would be entitled for Cenvat credit for th....