2013 (6) TMI 752 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal correctly ignored evidence on record before the Commissioner without contrary evidence adduced by the department.
2. Whether the Tribunal correctly denied Modvat credit claimed on certain items used in manufacturing chimney, condenser, and receiver.

Issue 1:
The appellant claimed Cenvat credit on structural items like MS plates, angles, channels as capital goods, but it was held that these goods are not capital goods. A show cause notice was issued demanding duty, interest, and penalty. The adjudicating authority found that the steel structures used for positioning/supporting machinery/equipments could not be treated as capital goods. The appellant failed to produce evidence in support of their plea until the appellate authority, where some photographs were submitted. The Tribunal, however, deemed the photographs insufficient evidence as they were not cross-checked with any other material, and the photographer was not examined for verification. The Tribunal concluded that there was no evidence to support the claim, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 2:
The Tribunal also addressed the denial of Modvat credit claimed on MS plates, angles, etc., used in manufacturing chimney, condenser, and receiver. The Tribunal's decision was based on the case of Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur-II. The Tribunal's observation was that the photographs submitted as evidence were not substantial enough to prove that the goods in question qualified as capital goods. As a result, the Tribunal found no legal question involved in the matter and dismissed the appeal without any costs awarded.