2012 (10) TMI 110 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit of M.S. angles, plates, beams etc - Stay Petition for waiver of duty - Held that - The lower authorities have not addressed the issue from the point of certificate of the Chartered Engineer produced by the appellant which indicates the some consumption of the material on which the credit was availed, for manufacturing/fabrication of the capital goods which are further used in the factory premises - also that the first appellate authority has not addressed the issue of limitation while the adjudicating authority has considered the issue of limitation, but did not give any reason for as to why the claim of the appellant as regards limitation should not be accepted. Thus remit the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration - in favour of assessee by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of duty, interest, and penalty.
2. Eligibility of CENVAT Credit for M.S. angles, plates, beams.
3. Consumption of materials for construction vs. fabrication of capital goods.
4. Consideration of Chartered Engineer's certificate.
5. Addressing the issue of limitation.
6. Necessity for reconsideration based on factual matrix and judicial precedents.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a Stay Petition seeking waiver of duty, interest, and penalty amounting to Rs.40,37,487/-, which were confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the first appellate authority. The primary issue was the eligibility of the appellant to avail CENVAT Credit for M.S. angles, plates, beams, etc., claimed as capital goods, which were used for supporting structures and construction of factory sheds.

2. The Appellate Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not adequately address the factual aspects of the case. It was noted that the appellant claimed some items were used for the fabrication of capital goods, supported by a certificate from a Chartered Engineer. The Tribunal observed that the first appellate authority had remanded a portion of the case for reconsideration, focusing on the consumption of materials for manufacturing/fabrication of capital goods used in the factory premises.

3. Another crucial issue highlighted was the consideration of the limitation period. The adjudicating authority had touched upon the issue of limitation without providing a reason for rejecting the appellant's claim. The first appellate authority failed to address this aspect. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a thorough examination by the lower authorities based on factual evidence and any relevant judicial precedents that the appellant might present in support of their case.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the adjudicating authority, setting aside the impugned order. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, to ensure a comprehensive reconsideration of all issues involved. The decision aimed to facilitate a more detailed examination of the factual matrix and legal aspects, maintaining an open stance on all issues for further deliberation.