2015 (7) TMI 1124 - HC - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - admissibility - Shape and Section, M.S. Plate, H.R. Plate, M.S. Channel, Angles, Roughly Shaped Forged Rolls, Paints and Primer, Aluminium Bar, Sheet Foam etc. - Held that - the assessee was given full opportunity to lead evidence to show that the items procured were used in the manufacture or fabrication of items, which was capital goods in order to claim Cenvat Credit. In spite of repeated opportunity being granted, we find that no credible evidence was filed by the assessee. On the other hand they delayed the proceedings raising various frivolous objections. The Commissioner, eventually passed an order-in-original holding that the items procured by the assessee were used for the construction of a factory, shed, building and laying of a foundation for Rolling Mill and, therefore, no Cenvat Credit could be granted. The appeal was also dismissed by the Tribunal. There is no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present case. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues Involved:
Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on capital goods

Analysis:

The judgment by the Allahabad High Court, delivered by Justices Tarun Agarwala and Surya Prakash Kesarwani, pertained to the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on capital goods. The case involved a situation where the appellant had claimed Cenvat Credit on various items like Shape and Section, M.S. Plate, H.R. Plate, M.S. Channel, Angles, and others, which were considered not admissible as capital goods. The Central Excise Department's audit team had identified this issue during the scrutiny for the Financial Year 2005-06. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to recover the Cenvat Credit claimed on these items.

The appellant was provided ample opportunities to present evidence demonstrating the usage of the procured items in the manufacturing or fabrication of capital goods to support their claim for Cenvat Credit. However, the court noted that despite repeated opportunities, the appellant failed to provide credible evidence. Instead, they resorted to delaying tactics by raising frivolous objections during the proceedings. Subsequently, the Commissioner ruled in an order-in-original that the items were utilized for constructing a factory, shed, building, and laying the foundation for a Rolling Mill, thereby denying the grant of Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal also upheld this decision by dismissing the appeal.

Given the specific factual findings presented in the case, the court concluded that no substantial question of law merited consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court, affirming the lower authorities' decisions regarding the inadmissibility of Cenvat Credit on the items in question.