Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)The Customs Tariff Act, 1975
M/S Tungabhdra Steel Products Ltd., ... vs The Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 5 September, 2001
In the case of Bellary Steel & Alloys Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum cited by learned Counsel, angles, channels, sheets etc., used in the fabrication and erection of technological structure were recognised as inputs. In that case, the above items were used in the fabrication of structural support to machinery. The benefit of capital goods credit under Rule 57Q of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 was extended to those items. In the present case, however, the question whether capital goods credit is admissible to similar items which were used for similar purpose will have to be examined with reference to relevant provisions of Rule 2 of the CENVAT Credit Rules. It is not in dispute that the machinery for which structural support was provided was covered under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. In other words, such machinery was covered under Rule 2(b)(i) of the CCR, 2002. Components of such goods were covered under Rule 2(b)(iii). Hence, it appears, CENVAT credit on the said items (channels, angles etc.) is admissible to the appellants in terms of Rule 2(b) of the CCR, 2002. The assessee has been claiming under this provision all throughout.
1