2025 (6) TMI 592

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al goods and input services in terms of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The cement grinding plant being a massive super structure involved integration and interconnection of several machineries, equipments and parts piece by piece and in order to support the structure of the plant, several supporting structures were fabricated using cement and iron & steel materials which included shed, embeddings on the civil foundations to sustain the weight and load when the plant become operational. Accordingly, the appellant for the purpose of setting up of the plant, procured cement, channels, angles, steel bars, plates and other supporting steel structural items and used them for construction of various civil structures. This was felt to be unconnected wi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ral excise duty paid on those goods by treating the same as "inputs" which was disputed by the Revenue on the ground that the plant erected at the site were embedded to the earth and as such, the structures could not be considered as excisable goods for the purpose of availing cenvat credit. It is the submission of the Ld. Consultant Shri R. Parthasarathy that the case of appellant is squarely covered under the definition of "input" as per Rule 2(k) of CCR 2004. He would also submit that under the unamended definition of "inputs" the appellant should be eligible for availment of credit on the disputed goods by considering the same as "inputs". Our attention was drawn to Explanation 2 appended to the definition of "input" to state that the C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....relation to the manufacture of the final products, and this relationship could be either direct or indirect without being weighed down by the fact that they are not included in the final product. Their inclusion or exclusion from the final product, evidently, is not material, as long as the said exercise takes place within factory precincts, used for the purposes of production. 31.2. The scope of the word 'input' has been further clarified in Explanation 2 to include goods, which are used in the manufacture of capital goods, which, in turn, are used in the factory of the manufacturer. 31.3. In other words, any goods, which have any relationship with the manufacture of final products, whether directly or indirectly, irrespective ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ubmitted by the appellant, which are annexed to the appeal memorandum. We find that on receipt of the disputed goods, the appellant had availed CENVAT credit under the head 'inputs'. Those goods received in the factory were subsequently used for assembly/manufacture of capital goods, installed within the factory of manufacture of final products. The period under dispute involved in this case is from September 2006 to December 2008. The relevant definition of "input" for consideration of the present dispute as contained in Rule 2(k) ibid at the relevant point of time is extracted herein below. 5. The relevant part of CESTAT Chennai Final order dt.28.02.2019 are extracted as under : "6.2 Although it is alleged in the Show Cause Notice that....