2013 (8) TMI 686 - AT - Central Excise

Eligiblity of Cenvat credit in respect of shapes and sections, Joists, Channels, MS Girders, Tropozodial Sheets, Channels, H.R. Coils etc - Items were used by them in the factory for fabrication of various components of the sugar mill machinery and also the pipeline and only some quantity had been used in making of supporting structures Held that - To the extent, the use of the steel is for fabrication of sugar mill machinery or its parts or pipes and tubes, the Cenvat credit would be admissible. The Cenvat credit would be inadmissible only in respect of that quantity of steel which has been used for supporting structures - Matters are remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority for denovo decision. The original Adjudicating Authority in course of denovo decision must examine the evidence produced by the appellant in support of their claim that major quantity of the steel items have been used in fabrication of pipes and tubes and equipment and parts of the sugar mill machinery.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of appellant for Cenvat credit in respect of specific steel items used in the factory.
2. Disallowance of Cenvat credit by the department.
3. Confirmation of Cenvat credit demands along with interest and penalty.
4. Setting aside of penalty by Commissioner (Appeals).
5. Appeals filed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:

1. The common issue in the appeals is the eligibility of the appellant for Cenvat credit concerning shapes, sections, joists, channels, MS girders, tropozodial sheets, H.R. coils, etc., used in the factory for fabrication of various components of the sugar mill machinery and supporting structures. The appellant claimed that these items were primarily used for machinery fabrication, while the department contended that they were solely used for supporting structures, leading to the disallowance of Cenvat credit.

2. The Tribunal noted that in a previous case for the appellant, the matter was remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision on the use of the steel items in question. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded for a denovo decision. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to assess the evidence presented by the appellant to determine the extent of steel usage in fabricating machinery components and parts. Cenvat credit would be permissible for steel used in machinery fabrication, parts, and pipes, while inadmissible for steel used in supporting structures.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority must differentiate between steel usage for machinery fabrication and supporting structures to determine the admissibility of Cenvat credit. The disposal of appeals was contingent on this distinction, ensuring that credit was only allowed for steel items utilized in the production process of the sugar mill machinery, parts, or pipes, rather than for supporting structures.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised in the case, the Tribunal's decision, and the directions given for the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the eligibility of the appellant for Cenvat credit based on the specific usage of steel items in the factory.