2016 (2) TMI 1072 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - MS Items - Held that - The appellants have furnished the Chartered Engineers certificate which shows the details of use of the MS items. The flowchart gives the details of the capital goods used in the manufacturing process by the appellant - The issue whether MS items used for fabrication/manufacture of capital goods are eligible for credit has been settled by various decisions - credit allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Denial of CENVAT credit on MS items.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing inorganic chemicals, availed irregular credit on MS items categorized as capital goods from June 2008 to October 2011. A show-cause notice was issued, alleging irregular credit availment, proposing recovery of &8377; 4,51,909/- with interest and penalty. Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, leading to an appeal by the appellants, which was upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals), prompting the present appeal.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that MS items were used for fabricating capital goods, providing Chartered Engineers certificate, photos, and a flowchart to support their claim. They reversed a portion of the liability voluntarily before the notice issuance. The counsel cited relevant judgments to strengthen their case.

3. The opposing Authorized Representative contended that the appellant failed to prove MS items' usage for capital goods fabrication, not complying with prescribed procedures. He emphasized the necessity of disclosing manufactured capital goods in ER-1 returns for credit eligibility.

4. The judge considered both parties' arguments and evidence. The key issue was the admissibility of credit on MS items. The Chartered Engineers certificate detailing MS items' use and the flowchart illustrating their role in manufacturing supported the appellant's claim. The judge noted that authorities overlooked the certificate. Relying on precedents cited by the appellant's counsel, the judge ruled in favor of the appellant, deeming the disallowance of credit unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential reliefs.

This comprehensive analysis covers the denial of CENVAT credit on MS items, the arguments presented by both sides, the evidence provided, procedural compliance, and the judge's decision based on relevant legal principles and precedents.