2016 (1) TMI 1203 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - MS items - Held that - The appellant has produced the Chartered Engineer Certificate photographs and other documents to show that MS items were used for installation, erection of plant and machinery/spares/parts/components of capital goods - The issue is settled in the decision laid in Mundra Ports and SEZ Ltd. 2015 (3) TMI 661 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein it was held that credit is admissible on MS items used for support structure of capital goods/components/ parts - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of credit availed on MS items as capital goods.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of credit on MS items as capital goods
The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of Sponge Iron, availed Cenvat credit on MS Channels, Plates, Beams, HR Plates, HR Sheets as capital goods. The department alleged irregular credit availed on these items and issued a show cause notice for the period June 2003 to December 2006, proposing denial of credit, recovery with interest, and penalty imposition. The adjudicating authority confirmed disallowance of credit, ordering recovery of &8377;12,20,919/- with interest and equal penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand. The appellants appealed to the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Appellant's Contentions
The appellant contended that MS items were used in installing and erecting plant machinery/parts/components for making finished products. They provided a Chartered Engineers Certificate and photographs demonstrating the use of MS items in various structures. The appellant cited decisions in Mundra Ports and SEZ Ltd vs CCE 2015 and India Cement Ltd vs CESTAT, Chennai 2015, supporting admissibility of credit on MS items used for support structures of capital goods/components/parts.

Issue 3: Respondent's Arguments
The respondent, supported by the AR, argued that credit on the impugned items was not admissible, and the demand was rightly confirmed by the authorities below.

Judgment and Analysis
The Tribunal considered the period from June 2003 to December 2006. After reviewing the Chartered Engineer Certificate, photographs, and relevant documents, it found that MS items were used for installation and erection of plant machinery/spares/parts/components of capital goods. Referring to precedents like Mundra Ports and SEZ Ltd. and India Cements Ltd. vs CESTAT Chennai, the Tribunal held that credit on MS items used for support structures of capital goods/components/parts is admissible. It noted the High Court of Gujarat's observation that the amendment introduced from 7.7.2009 applies prospectively. Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable, setting it aside and allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs, if any.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on legal precedents and interpretation of relevant laws and regulations.