2015 (9) TMI 1506 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - plates, MS angles, MS channels, MS plates, HR sheet, MS joist and welding rods, etc. - denial on the ground that the appellate authority without examining the records of the respondent, has extended the Cenvat benefit - Held that - the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has arrived at such conclusion based on the documents/records/photographs and the Chartered Engineer s certificate submitted by the respondent - credit rightly allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order allowing Cenvat credit on inputs without proper verification.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order passed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) granting Cenvat credit to the respondent on various inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner had accepted the respondent's certificate without verifying the manufacturing process of capital goods supported by records. The Revenue argued that the appellate authority did not examine the respondent's records and extended the Cenvat benefit, making the order illegal. Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Member (J) noted that the Commissioner had allowed the Cenvat credit based on the usage of disputed goods in the manufacture of specific capital goods, supported by documents, photographs, and a Chartered Engineer's certificate provided by the respondent.

The Member (J) found that the Commissioner's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the factual evidence, leading to the conclusion that the disputed goods were indeed used in the production of capital goods as defined under Chapter Heading 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Given the detailed examination conducted by the Commissioner and the supporting documentation submitted by the respondent, the Member (J) concluded that there was no justification for appellate intervention. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the order allowing the Cenvat credit on the inputs used by the respondent in the manufacture of capital goods. The decision was pronounced in the open court, bringing the matter to a close.