2012 (12) TMI 544 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of cenvat credit - CENVAT credit availed in respect of the structural items used for the fabrication of sugar silos and weighbridge - invoices are seen mentioned in the Chief Engineer s statement which indicates that the HR coils covered by the invoices were used in the fabrication of sugar silos - same set of invoices and the same structural items are seen stated in the Chief Engineer s statement which also indicates the end-use as sugar silos Held that - Chief Engineer s statement specifies the structural items and also states that these were used in the fabrication of weighbridge. There is no evidence to show that the weighbridge fabricated out of the structural items covered by the above three invoices is located within the factory premises of the respondent - order is sustained to the limited extent of grant of CENVAT credit of Rs.78,185/- which was availed by the respondent on the following invoices viz. No.201, 209 and 210 dt.08/09/2006, No.2089 and 2378 dt.19/02/2007 and No.2113 dt.20/02/2007. Any further CENVAT Credit allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) shall stand denied to the respondent - credit so quantified by the original authority shall be recovered from the respondent without interest or penalty.

Summary

Issues:
Adjudication of CENVAT credit denial, reliance on previous orders and certificates, classification of goods, compliance with Supreme Court judgment, denial of credit based on end-use, relevance of Chief Engineer's statement, distinguishable Tribunal decisions.

Analysis:

1. The original authority denied CENVAT credit to the assessee, leading to an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed it based on previous orders and a Tribunal decision. The Department appealed, arguing distinctions in facts, non-excisable goods, classification under CETA Schedule, and non-compliance with a Supreme Court judgment.

2. The Department contended that the reliance on the Chief Engineer's certificate by the lower appellate authority was questionable. The dispute revolved around the CENVAT credit of Rs.88,751/- availed by the respondent for structural items used in fabrication. The Tribunal analyzed invoices and the Chief Engineer's statement to determine the eligibility of credit.

3. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the denial of credit based on the end-use of structural items. It noted matching details in invoices and the Chief Engineer's statement, allowing credit where there was consistency. However, credit was denied for items not used within the factory premises, as they were not 'CENVATable' capital goods.

4. The Tribunal addressed the appellant's argument regarding a factually distinguishable case and upheld the reliance on the Chief Engineer's statement. It emphasized the consistency in decisions based on such certificates and statements, rejecting the appellant's contradictory stance on their validity.

5. The Tribunal sustained the grant of CENVAT credit on specific invoices while directing the original authority to quantify the credit accurately for recovery from the respondent. Further credit granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) was denied, ensuring compliance with the limited credit allowed by the Tribunal's decision.

6. The appeal was disposed of with the above terms, emphasizing the importance of consistent application of rules and reliance on valid documentation in determining CENVAT credit eligibility.