2011 (10) TMI 336 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit in respect of MS angles, plates, sheets, rods, etc., treated as inputs by assessee used for strengthening/maintenance of old structures and also for fabrication of capital goods Held that - The matter is remanded to the original authority for considering all the relevant aspects viz to examine whether MS angles, sheets, etc., qualified to be capital goods in terms of any ruling of the apex court, whether the above items could alternatively be regarded as inputs in terms of Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, to consider earlier orders of adjudication in favor of assessee relied by him and lastly, the competent authority to ascertain the basic facts of the case is the original authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Grant of CENVAT credit for MS angles, plates, sheets, rods as 'inputs' or 'capital goods'.

Analysis:

The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the grant of CENVAT credit to the respondent for various items like MS angles, plates, sheets, and rods, treated as 'inputs'. The Revenue alleged that these items were not in the nature of accessories or components of any 'capital goods', making the availment of CENVAT credit irregular. The deputy Commissioner denied the CENVAT credit and ordered recovery with interest, along with imposing a penalty. In response, the assessee claimed that the items were allowed as 'capital goods' by the original authority in earlier show-cause notices. The appellate authority accepted the alternative plea that the items could be treated as 'inputs' under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue challenged this decision, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Saraswati Sugar Mills, where similar items were not considered 'capital goods'. The Revenue also argued that the benefit granted to the assessee was beyond the scope of the dispute.

The consultant for the respondent cited various decisions to support their claim that the items were essential accessories for the sugar manufacturing plant, falling under the definition of 'capital goods' or 'inputs'. The Tribunal found the case fit for remand to the original authority for further examination. The original authority had not assessed whether the items qualified as 'capital goods' as per relevant rulings, nor had they considered if the items could be treated as 'inputs'. Additionally, the reliance on earlier favorable orders was not taken into account. The Tribunal emphasized that the original authority should consider all relevant aspects and provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case. If necessary, the original authority could inspect the assessee's factory to verify any essential facts.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the original authority for a fresh assessment, considering all relevant issues and providing the assessee with a fair opportunity to be heard.