2014 (6) TMI 550 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - inputs like angle, beams etc. - Manufacturing of capital goods such as Roller Table, Furnace, Weigh Bridge and Cooling Bed - Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Held that - these inputs have been used by the respondents for manufacturing capital goods and same has been explained by the respondents in reply to the show cause notice. That fact remains uncontroverted. Therefore, the said fact has been admitted. If that fact is admitted, there is no question of denial of input credit. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against allowance of Cenvat credit on inputs used in manufacturing capital goods under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order where Cenvat credit on inputs was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as they were used in manufacturing capital goods such as Roller Table, Furnace, Weigh Bridge, and Cooling Bed. The respondent had availed Cenvat credit on items like angle and beams, which was initially denied as not falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The respondent reversed the credit on persuasion by the department, and a show cause notice was issued for appropriation of the same. The adjudicating authority confirmed demands as the respondent admitted the wrong availment of credit without examining the purpose for which the inputs were used. The Commissioner (Appeals) later examined the facts in detail and held that the respondents were entitled to the credit as the inputs were used in manufacturing capital goods falling under Chapter 72. The Revenue appealed against this decision, along with an application for stay.

During the hearing, the ld. AR argued for the Revenue, but upon reviewing the record, it was found that the inputs were indeed used by the respondents for manufacturing capital goods, as explained in their response to the show cause notice. This fact was not disputed and was admitted by the respondents. Consequently, since the fact of using the inputs for manufacturing capital goods was admitted, there was no basis for denying the input credit. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the stay application and the appeal filed by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow Cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacturing of capital goods falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The Tribunal found that the respondents had adequately demonstrated the usage of inputs for this purpose, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.