2015 (3) TMI 1254 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - inputs - zinc - furnace oil - hydrochloric acid - denial on the ground that credit on the inputs, taken wrongly, which have never been used in their factory - Held that - the machinery is available in the factory which is in working condition. Moreover, it is fact on record that the finished goods were galvanized. In that circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant has not facility for galvanization - the appellant has rightly availed credit on zinc, furnace oil and hydrochloric acid which were used for galvanization of final products - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against denial of credit on zinc, furnace oil, and hydrochloric acid; denial of credit due to alleged lack of galvanization facility and furnace installation; invocation of extended period of limitation for issuing show cause notice.

Analysis:

1. Denial of credit on inputs: The appellant appealed against the denial of credit on zinc, furnace oil, and hydrochloric acid by the lower authorities. An audit objection was initially raised regarding the lack of a galvanization facility and furnace in the appellant's unit. However, during an investigation and panchnama, it was found that two Zasta Bhathi or Hot Dip Galvanized Furnaces were installed and operational in the factory. The appellant explained that they clear their final product after galvanization, which was not disputed by the department. The appellant argued that the credit on these items should not be denied, especially since the show cause notice was issued using the extended period of limitation.

2. Evidence of procurement of capital goods: The respondent contended that the appellant did not provide evidence of procuring the capital goods, specifically the furnace for galvanization. It was claimed that the appellant lacked the necessary facility for galvanization, as confirmed by the lower authorities. The respondent argued that since there was no evidence of goods being sent to a job worker, the denial of Cenvat credit on the inputs was justified. The lack of evidence of capital goods procurement was a crucial point raised by the respondent to support the denial of credit.

3. Merits and limitation: The appellate tribunal considered the submissions from both parties. It was noted that the machinery for galvanization was indeed present and operational in the factory during the relevant period. The appellant also provided a balance sheet to demonstrate that no new machinery was installed during the period in question. Moreover, the finished goods were confirmed to be galvanized, supporting the appellant's claim of having the necessary facility for galvanization. Consequently, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on both merit and limitation grounds, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief deemed appropriate.

In conclusion, the judgment favored the appellant, emphasizing the presence and use of galvanization machinery to support the credit availed on specific inputs. The decision highlighted the importance of evidence, both in terms of machinery installation and actual usage, in determining the eligibility for Cenvat credit.