At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: DR. SATISH CHANDRA
By, (PRESIDENT) AND THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: V. PADMANABHAN
For Petitioner: Arnab Chakraborty, Advocate And For Respondents: S. Mukhopadhyay, DR
1. The present appeal is filed by the assessee-Appellants against the Order-in-Appeal No. 09/KOL-V/2012 dated 19.03.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Kolkata. The period in dispute is 200 to 2008.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, during the period under consideratio
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
n, the assessee-Appellants were manufacturer of steel alloys and non-steel alloys wires which attracted the Central Excise Duty as per the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They had claimed the Cenvat Credit on Channel, Joist and M.S. TMT Bars. The same was denied by the Department. Being aggrieved, the assessee-Appellants have filed the present appeal.
3. With this background, we have heard Shri Arnab Chakraborty, learned counsel for the assessee-Appellants and Shri S. Mukhopadhyay, learned DR for the Revenue.
4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the material available on record, we find that an identical issue has come up before this Tribunal in the case of Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Raipur : 2016 (341) ELT 372 (Tri.-Del), wherein it was held that:
15. We find that the controversy can be laid to rest by making a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd : 2010 (255) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered an identical issue of steel plates and MS channels used in the fabrication of chimney for diesel generating set. The credit stands allowed in the light of Rule 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has referred to the user test evolved by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. Jawahar Mills Ltd : 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), which is required to be satisfied to find out whether or not particular goods could be said to be capital goods. When we apply the user test to the case in hand, we find that the structural steel items have been used for the fabrication of support structures for capital goods. The appellants have argued that the various capital goods, such as, kiln, material handling conveyor system, furnace, etc. cannot be suspended in mid-air. They will need to be suitably supported to facilitate smooth functioning of such machines. It is obvious that the structural items have been suitably worked upon for this purpose. Accordingly, the goods fabricated, using such structurals, will have to be considered as parts of the relevant machines. The definition of Capital Goods includes, components, spares and accessories of such capital goods. Accordingly, applying the User Test to the facts in hand, we have no hesitation in holding that the structural items used in the fabrication of support structures would fall within the ambit of Capital Goods as contemplated under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, hence will be entitled to the Cenvat credit.
5. By following our earlier decision (supra), we find no reason to sustain the impugned order and the same is hereby set aside.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee-Appellants is allowed