Judgment:
In these appeals filed by the department, the short question which arises for consideration is whether steel items like TMT bars, MS channels, MS angles, MS plates, MS beams, MS joists, MS coils, SS sheets, HR sheets etc. used by the respondent for fabricating structural support to capital goods could be considered to be ‘capital goods’ for the purpose of CENVAT credit for the period of dispute. According to the appellant, none of these items can be considered to be components or parts or accessories of any machine or machinery and hence CENVAT credit cannot be claimed thereon by the respondent. In support of this view of the appellant, the learned DR has relied on the Tribunal’s Larger Bench decision in the case of Vandana Global Vs. CCE - 2010 (253) ELT 440 and Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills Vs. Commissioner - 2011 (270) ELT 465 (SC). Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Commissioner Vs. M/s. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. - 2010 (255) ELT 481 (SC) and Final Order No.616/2011 dated 23.9.2011 passed by this Bench in an earlier case of the same assessee (Appeal No.E/433/2009).
2. After examining the records and considering the submissions of both sides, I note that the relevant aspects which ought to have been considered in the context of examining the admissibility of capital goods credit to the assessee in respect of the aforesaid items were not actually considered by the original authority. These aspects were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills (supra) and Saraswati Sugar Mills (supra). Before me today, the appellant has relied on Saraswati Sugar Mills (supra) and the respondent on M/s. Rajasthan spinning and Weaving Mills (supra). I am of the view that it is for the original authority to consider the relevant aspects and take fresh decision on the admissibility of CENVAT credit on the aforesaid structurals to the respondent under Rule 2 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It is open to that authority to record a finding on the question of fact and then apply the relevant case law. The decisions referred to in this order and any other decisions which might be relied on by both sides at the time of de novo adjudication of the case shall also be considered by the adjudicating authority.
3. Therefore, without expressing any view on the substantive issue, I set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the original authority for fresh decision in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. All the appeals stand allowed by way of remand.