2014 (3) TMI 911 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Whether M.S. Plates, M.S. Angles & Joist, HR sheets etc. used in the factory by the appellant for repair and maintenance of the plants and machinery for replacement of worn out parts or for fabrication of structures and machinery used in production of sugar and molasses are eligible for Cenvat credit as inputs or capital goods - Held that - There is no mention in this statement that the structures referred to are the supporting structures for the machinery. When these items are used for fabrication of various machinery or their parts, the same would be covered by the definition of input and would be eligible for Cenvat credit. When these items are used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery, the Cenvat credit would be admissible in respect of these, in view of judgment of Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Union of India v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. (2006 (5) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN), and of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Salem v. India Cements Ltd. (2005 (11) TMI 348 - CESTAT, CHENNAI) wherein it has been held that M.S./S.S. Plates used for repair and maintenance of the machinery, which is used for manufacture of final product would be eligible for Cenvat credit. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:

1. Eligibility of M.S. Plates, M.S. Angles & Joist, HR sheets for Cenvat credit as inputs or capital goods.

Analysis:

The appeal revolved around the eligibility of certain items such as M.S. Plates, M.S. Angles & Joist, HR sheets for Cenvat credit as inputs or capital goods. Initially, the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the credit. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this decision, disallowing the credit and confirming the Cenvat credit demand. The matter was then taken to the Tribunal, which remanded it back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision after considering the use of these items and relevant case laws, including the judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in a specific case. Subsequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) again disallowed the credit on these items, stating they are not covered by the definition of capital goods and are used for fabrication of structures. This led to the filing of the present appeal.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the items in question were used for repair, maintenance of machinery, or fabrication of machinery parts, making them eligible for Cenvat credit as per relevant case laws. The Departmental Representative, on the other hand, defended the impugned order, emphasizing that the items were mainly used for fabrication of supporting structures, hence not eligible for credit as per a Tribunal's decision in another case. After considering the submissions and records, the judge found that the items were used for machinery parts or repair and maintenance, making them eligible for Cenvat credit based on precedents like the judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and previous Tribunal decisions. The judge noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide reasons for disregarding these precedents, leading to the conclusion that disallowing the credit for items used for repair, maintenance, or fabrication of machinery parts was not valid. Consequently, the impugned order disallowing the Cenvat credit on these items was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.