UNION OF INDIA Vs. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANY LTD
LAWS(CHH)-2010-10-34
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Decided on
October 06,2010
UNION OF INDIA
Appellant
VERSUS
ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANY LTD.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD. V. CCE,MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]COMMISSSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE COIMBATORE VS. JAWAHAR MILLS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE JAIPUR VS. RAJASTHAN SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LTD [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
UPPER GANGES SUGAR & INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. COMMR. OF C. EX. [LAWS(ALL)-2012-9-317] [REFERRED TO]COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE VS. D.S.M. SUGAR MILLS LTD. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-2-322] [REFERRED TO]
JODHPUR ALLOYS PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [LAWS(CE)-2013-2-35] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Revenue's appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the impugned order of Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short "the Tribunal") has been admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the learned Appellate Tribunal has erred in allowing the appeal to the Respondent and allowing them credit on the impugned items?
2. Whether the items, as specified in the memo of the appeal, were defined as "Capital Goods" in terms of Rule 2(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 during the period from December, 2003 to March, 2004? And if not, then is it correct that the same were not entitled to Mod-vat credit as not being "Capital Goods
(2.)CENVAT credit was disallowed to the Respondent/Assessee on the capital goods namely, Wear Plate, HRSS Plate, MS Plate, Angles, Channels etc. The appeal preferred by the Assessee has been further dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Annexure A/4. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Assessee by relying upon the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai,2006 195 ELT 164, wherein it has been held that structural items such as angles and channels, plates, rods etc. required to make machines function without any vibration or movement, cannot be said to be used in construction of buildings but linked with machinery used in production of final products, and, therefore, the CENVAT credit is admissible.
(3.)Mr. Shashank Dubey, learned Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Smiti Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/Assessee, relying upon the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 9th July, 2010 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3760/03 in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., 2010 255 ELT 481 argued that the issue sought to be raised by the revenue in this appeal stands concluded in favour of the Assessee.
Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of CCE, Coimbatore and Ors. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. and Ors., 2001 6 SCC 274
1. Whether the learned Appellate Tribunal has erred in allowing the appeal to the Respondent and allowing them credit on the impugned items?
2. Whether the items, as specified in the memo of the appeal, were defined as "Capital Goods" in terms of Rule 2(b) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002 during the period from December, 2003 to March, 2004? And if not, then is it correct that the same were not entitled to Mod-vat credit as not being "Capital Goods
(2.)CENVAT credit was disallowed to the Respondent/Assessee on the capital goods namely, Wear Plate, HRSS Plate, MS Plate, Angles, Channels etc. The appeal preferred by the Assessee has been further dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Annexure A/4. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Assessee by relying upon the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Ispat Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai,2006 195 ELT 164, wherein it has been held that structural items such as angles and channels, plates, rods etc. required to make machines function without any vibration or movement, cannot be said to be used in construction of buildings but linked with machinery used in production of final products, and, therefore, the CENVAT credit is admissible.
(3.)Mr. Shashank Dubey, learned Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Smiti Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the Respondent/Assessee, relying upon the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 9th July, 2010 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3760/03 in the matter of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., 2010 255 ELT 481 argued that the issue sought to be raised by the revenue in this appeal stands concluded in favour of the Assessee.
Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of CCE, Coimbatore and Ors. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. and Ors., 2001 6 SCC 274
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.