The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in the case Vriddheshwar SSK Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of CGST & C.Ex observed and has allowed the cenvat credit on parts for the efficient functioning of machines for manufacturing. The bench comprising of Judicial Member, Ajay Sharma observed and has stated that it has been justified by appellant in availing the Cenvat credit on various items, namely, S.S. Welding Tube, Steel, Tubes, Alloy Steel Pipe, Prime HR Steel Coile, M.S. Wire, S.S. Welded Tube, HR Steel Pipe, M.S. Slate and Link Outer, which are being used in those machines that are used for manufacturing the final product. In the present case, the appellants or assessee are the manufactures of sugar and molasses and are availing themselves of Cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods, and input services under the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The court noticed during the audit that they had availed themselves of Cenvat credit for central excise duty which is being paid on items such as steel tubes, M.S. wire, nickel screen, alloy steel pipes, H.R. steel pipe, S.S. welding tube, sugar bag stacker chain, etc. as the inputs. The court observed that as per the department, the items are not for the inputs of the manufacturer of molasses and sugar, and the Cenvat credit is not admissible on items. Therefore, the court observed on being pointed out by the audit, the appellant reversed the amount via the Cenvat account, challan and, debit entry respectively. Further, it has been submitted by the appellant that steel tubes, M.S. wire, SS welding tube, the alloy steel pipe, H.R. steel pipe, chain, M.S. slate, H.R. steel coil, link outer, etc. are all inputs or the parts which are used in the various types of machinery being used by the appellant for manufacturing the final products. Thus, they being a special part for the smooth and efficient functioning of the machinery used by the appellant for manufacturing sugar and molasses. It has been submitted by the appellant that these are only the capital goods and the same are not used for carrying out any type of renovation or construction work or for any permanent fixed structure. Therefore, the department submitted that no evidence has been produced by the appellant to establish that the said goods are capital goods as per Rule 2(a) of the CCR, 2004. Accordingly, the tribunal held that the department has put no cogent evidence to show that these parts have been used for structural purposes. Adding to it, the court stated that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the claim cannot be denied made by the appellant.