Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)
M/S Kalyani Steel Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 8 August, 2016 cites

Mehra Bros vs Joint Commercial Officer, Madras on 14 November, 1990

4) Mehra Bros Vs Joint Commercial Officer [1991(51)ELT 173(SC) On the other hand learned A.R. reiterated the findings of the Commissioner and submitted that the columns act as a support structure of shed and therefore cannot be considered as capital goods. He further submitted that the columns do not play any role in the functioning of the machinery of which the appellant had claimed as accessories of the crane.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 20 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Cce, Raipur (C.G.) vs M/S. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd on 17 April, 2013

4. On a perusal of the records, I find that the learned Commissioner has held that the crane column is only a supporting structure and does not fall in the definition of capital goods for the purpose of claiming CENVAT credit. In fact crane column is used to hold crane girders in position properly while the crane is working. In view of this use, it is essential accessories for EOT crane installed in the appellants factory as EOT crane cannot function without the crane column. Moreover, the division bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Vs Jindal Steel & Power Ltd (supra) where exactly the same issue was involved has held that the columns of the crane are covered in the scope of the term accessories in the definition of capital goods and the assesseee was entitled to take the CENVAT credit on the same. Therefore keeping in view the decision in the above said case, I hold that the impugned order on which credit has been denied is covered in the scope of the terms accessories, in the definition of capital goods at clause (ii) of Rule (2)(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 because it is specifically designed fabricated/manufactured as per specific technical requirement. Since no evidence has been adduced by the Revenue to establish that these goods have not been used in the factory of the appellant and therefore, the appellant has complied with the condition of Rule 2(b) of CENVAT Credit Rules that such goods should be used in the factory of the manufacturer of final product. In view the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore, I set aside the same by allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief if any.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1