By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, AUG 10, 2017: THE appellant availed credit of the CE duty paid on the EOT cranes supplied in two parts and under the cover of two invoices.

CENVAT Credit in respect of second invoice dated 29.06.2011 was allowed, however, credit of duty paid under the first invoice dated 23.04.2011 was disallowed on the ground that the CRANE GIRDER WITH LONG TRAVEL DRIVE ARRANGEMENT FOR EOT CRANE covered under the said invoice is not capital goods as per the definition given in CCR, 2004,since being a supporting structure.

Having failed in their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant is before the CESTAT.

It is submitted that it is only one capital goods cleared in two parts and both the parts cannot be treated as separately; that EOT crane is covered under the definition of capital goods provided under the CCR. Reliance is inter alia placed on the decisions in Kalyani Steel Ltd. - 2016-TIOL-1901-CESTAT-BANG, Kisanveer Satara SSK Ltd. - 2016-TIOL-1464-CESTAT-MUM and MIDI Extrusions Ltd. - 2014-TIOL-1467-CESTAT-DEL.

The AR reiterated the stand taken by the lower authorities.

The Bench observed -

"…The capital goods received by the appellants is only one item i.e. EOT crane, which was cleared in two parts. The credit of such capital goods is admissible as a whole and two parts cannot be treated as two different items. Therefore, there is no dispute that the appellants have received EOT crane, which is admissible capital goods in terms of Rule 2A of Cenvat Credit Rules…"

Distinguishing the case law of Vandana Global Ltd. - 2010-TIOL-624-CESTAT-DEL-LB cited by the lower authorities, the CESTAT added -

++ However, in the present case the fact is that the appellants have not received the joists or similar goods but they have received EOT cranes in two parts and in both the invoices EOT cranes was shown classified under Chapter 8246 1100 which applies to EOT cranes only. As per the definition this capital goods is clearly covered therein. Therefore, the appellant are entitled for the cenvat credit.

The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

(See 2017-TIOL-2869-CESTAT-MUM)