2014 (7) TMI 1229 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - steel racks - denial on the ground that the disputed goods, by nature of their use, neither qualify as inputs nor capital goods - Held that - in view of the statutory definition of input and the requirement under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 regarding the manner of storing the raw material and finished product, it can be said that the disputed goods are very much essential to be considered as inputs, used in or in relation to manufacture of the final product. Extended period of limitation - Held that - the limitation should be confined to a period of one year because there is no suppression or misstatement involved. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on steel racks (pallets) as inputs or capital goods.
2. Eligibility of disputed goods for Cenvat credit.
3. Applicability of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.
4. Bar on limitation period for show cause proceedings.

Analysis:

1. The appellant contested the denial of Cenvat credit on steel racks used for storing inputs and capital goods. The appellant argued that the disputed goods are essential for maintaining the quality and marketability of their confectionery products. Reference was made to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, emphasizing the importance of proper storage to prevent contamination. The definition of 'input' was discussed, highlighting that goods need not be directly used in manufacturing but can be considered inputs if used for any production purpose within the factory premises. The Tribunal differentiated the present case from a previous ruling, emphasizing the necessity of steel racks for storing raw materials and finished products to meet market requirements.

2. The Revenue, represented by the learned AR, maintained the position taken in the impugned order, citing a previous Tribunal decision to support the denial of Cenvat credit to the appellant. However, the Tribunal found that the disputed goods were crucial for storing goods in the appellant's factory, preventing contamination of confectionery products. The Tribunal emphasized the statutory requirement of maintaining sanitary conditions for food manufacturers and concluded that the steel racks qualified as inputs necessary for the manufacturing process.

3. The Tribunal addressed the issue of the limitation period for initiating show cause proceedings. It was noted that the proceedings were initiated using the extended period of limitation, but the Tribunal determined that the limitation should be restricted to one year as there was no suppression or misstatement by the appellant. The Tribunal highlighted that the Central Excise Department was aware of the Cenvat credit through filed returns and audits, leading to the conclusion that the proceedings were time-barred and the demand could not be upheld on this ground.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant. The decision was based on the essential nature of steel racks as inputs for the manufacturing process, the requirements of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, and the limitation on the period for show cause proceedings. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was deemed to have no substance.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the legal interpretation of relevant statutes, and the Tribunal's reasoning in reaching its decision.