2014 (12) TMI 536 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre deposit - CENVAT Credit - Whether the appellants are eligible for CENVAT credit of duty paid on inputs such as MS Channels, Beams, Joists, Coils, H.R. Plates, G.C. Sheets, and H.R. Sheets etc. - Held that - items can be considered to have been used for fabrication of machinery within the factory has some merit and the issue is debatable and arguable. Further there is a decision of Hon ble High Court of Madras 2011 (8) TMI 399 - MADRAS HIGH COURT which is relied upon is also required to be considered in detail. It has to be noted that chartered engineer certificate is fairly detailed one and appellant has also produced photographs of plant and machinery produced for setting up of the factory. There are several items which can be straightway considered as parts/components and there are also some items of machines which are clearly covered by the definition. Under these circumstances, we consider that the submissions made by the learned counsel that a portion of the credit is not admissible and in fact he identified those machineries where exactly such credit would not be admissible and he showed us the nature of use and ultimate use in such cases. - Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Eligibility for CENVAT credit of duty paid on various inputs used for setting up a factory and fabrication of parts/components for a sponge iron plant.

Analysis:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the eligibility of the appellants for CENVAT credit on duty paid for inputs like MS Channels, Beams, Joists, Coils, H.R. Plates, G.C. Sheets, and H.R. Sheets used during the period from July 2009 to January 2011 for setting up a factory and fabricating parts for a sponge iron plant. The appellant claimed eligibility based on a chartered engineer certificate detailing the usage of inputs, which was not accepted by the authorities due to the lack of detailed evidence showing the specific parts/components manufactured and used in the fabrication of the plant. The learned counsel argued citing precedents where similar cases allowed for credit. Additionally, the contention arose that certain resulting items could be considered supporting structures of immovable property, thus potentially disqualifying the appellant from the credit.

The learned AR opposed the submissions, emphasizing that immovable property emerged from the assembly of various items within the factory, and the chartered engineer certificate lacked specifics regarding the components manufactured and used, rendering the claim ineligible without proper documentary evidence and detailed information.

Upon considering both arguments, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's claim that the items were used for machinery fabrication within the factory, deeming the issue debatable and arguable. The Tribunal acknowledged the detailed chartered engineer certificate and the photographs of the plant and machinery submitted by the appellant. Notably, the Tribunal recognized certain items as parts/components covered by the definition, while also identifying machineries where the credit may not be admissible. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the learned counsel's assessment of about Rs. 5 lakhs as the amount potentially not entirely admissible as CENVAT credit. The appellant was granted relief, waiving the pre-deposit requirement if the specified amount was deposited within a stipulated timeframe, with a stay against recovery during the appeal's pendency.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the intricacies of CENVAT credit eligibility concerning the usage of specific inputs for factory setup and machinery fabrication. The decision highlights the importance of detailed evidence, precedents, and the nature of use in determining the admissibility of credit, ultimately providing relief to the appellant based on a nuanced evaluation of the facts and circumstances presented.