2011 (1) TMI 473 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit on capital goods - items used for erecting the cycle stand, store bin, raw racks, rack jali, tools break, brass bags, roof structure, gate wall and trolleys - The department was of the view that since all these items falling under chapter 73 of this tariff are not covered by the definition of capital goods and since the same had been used for erecting structures like cycle stand, store bin, raw racks, gate wall etc., the same are not eligible for capital goods Cenvat credit - Held that - the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global v. CCE, Raipur 2010 -TMI - 76147 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) has decided this issue in favour of the Revenue - He also pleaded that all the items falling under Chapter 73 had been used for erecting various structures and none of them are covered by the definition of capital goods - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility for capital goods Cenvat credit for items under sub-heading 7310 1020 of the Tariff used for erecting various structures.

Analysis:
The case revolved around the eligibility of the appellant for capital goods Cenvat credit concerning items under sub-heading 7310 1020 of the Tariff utilized for constructing structures like cycle stands, store bins, raw racks, gate walls, etc. The department contended that as these items were not covered by the definition of capital goods and were used for erecting structures, they were not eligible for the credit. The Assistant Commissioner, through an order-in-original, denied the Cenvat credit, imposed a demand of Rs. 2,38,717/- along with interest, and levied a penalty under Rule 15 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, read with Section 11AC of the Act. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Assistant Commissioner's decision, leading to the filing of the present appeal.

Upon the hearing, where no representation was made by the appellant despite receiving the notice, the case proceeded ex-parte as per Rule 21 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1983. The Departmental Representative argued that the issue had been settled in a previous Tribunal case, Vandana Global v. CCE, Raipur, where it was decided that items falling under Chapter 73 used for constructing structures were not eligible for capital goods credit. The representative emphasized that none of the items fell under the definition of capital goods.

After considering the arguments and reviewing the grounds of appeal, the judge concluded that items from Chapter 73 used for constructing structures like cycle stands and other items were not eligible for capital goods credit based on the precedent set by the Vandana Global case. The judge reiterated that items used for making almirahs, racks, etc., could not be considered inputs for capital goods as they did not meet the definition. Consequently, the judge found no merit in the appeal, upheld the impugned order, and dismissed the appeal.