2013 (10) TMI 1142 - AT - Central Excise

Interpretation of eligibility of CENVAT Credit Waiver of Pre-deposit cenvat credit on items like, H.R. Plates, Joists, Beams, Channels etc. - the applicants have not specifically mentioned that the details of disputed items as structural items while reversing the cenvat credit - Held that - Following Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCEX, Raipur 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) - This Tribunal has been taking a consistent view by allowing stay petition of the assessee where extended period of limitation is involved but directed predeposit, wherever demand is for normal period of limitation - the Applicant are directed to make amount as pre-deposit of 25% of the CENVAT credit upon such submission the balance dues would stand waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the Appeal - Partial Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
Application for waiver of predeposit of cenvat credit and penalty under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Eligibility of cenvat credit on items like H.R. Plates, Joists, Beams, Channels used in the manufacture of capital goods and structures.

Analysis:
The case involves an application for waiver of predeposit of cenvat credit amounting to Rs.11.18 lakhs and an equal penalty imposed under Rule 15(1) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The issue at hand pertains to the eligibility of cenvat credit on items such as H.R. Plates, Joists, Beams, Channels used in the production of capital goods and structures. The appellant's advocate argued that the specific uses of these items have been detailed in their Appeal Memorandum. On the other hand, the Revenue's representative cited precedents where cenvat credit on similar items used as supporting structures led to directions for deposits within the normal period of limitation. Reference was made to a recent decision by the Tribunal in a related case. The appellant had already deposited Rs.5.61 lakhs out of the total initial demand of Rs.16.80 lakhs, with the reversed amount pertaining to cenvat credit availed on structures.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal noted that the issue primarily concerns the eligibility of cenvat credit on items like H.R. Plates, Joists, Beams, Channels used in the production of capital goods. The appellant claimed to have reversed Rs.5.61 lakhs related to structures, while the remaining amount was for items used in manufacturing machinery and plants. However, the Tribunal observed that the appellant did not explicitly specify the disputed items as structural when reversing the cenvat credit. Without clear submissions and findings on this matter, it was challenging to accept that the reversal solely pertained to structural items. The issue also involved the interpretation of angles, channels, beams as capital goods/inputs, referencing a previous decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal typically allows stay petitions when an extended period of limitation is involved but directs predeposit for demands within the normal limitation period. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit 25% of the confirmed cenvat credit for the normal period within eight weeks, with the balance dues waived upon compliance, and recovery stayed during the appeal proceedings.