ITC LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SALEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellants are challenging the denial of Cenvat credit availed by them on the following items, namely, Non -Alloy Steel Bars, H.R.S.S. Plates, S.S. Plates, Steel doors Corrugated Roof Sheets by the lower authorities on the premise that these items do not fall within the definition of "capital goods" as per Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Both interest and penalty of equal amount has also been imposed on the appellants. Shri J. Shankar Raman, learned counsel for the appellants appeared and submitted that in paragraph 9 of the adjudication order there is a finding as per the report of the Range Officer that the items, namely, Non -Alloy Steel Bars, H.R.S.S. Plates and S.S. Plates were used by the appellants in their factory workshop for repair of machinery. As regards, items like Steel Doors and Corrugated Roof Sheets, it was reported that they are used as building material in the factory. As the above referred items are either in the factory workshop for repair of machinery or used a material in the factory, therefore, they are entitled for Cenvat credit as per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Union of India v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. reported in, 2007 (214) E.L.T. 510 (Raj.).

(2.) ON the other hand, the learned DR opposes the contention of the learned counsel and relied on the decisions of Vandana Global Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur reported in : 2010 (253) E.L.T. 440 (Tri. -LB) and Saraswati Sugar Mills v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi -III reported in, 2011 (270) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) and submitted that as these items are in the nature of supporting structures, they are not entitled to Cenvat credit. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has rightly denied the Cenvat credit.