2015 (7) TMI 63 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Held that - Cenvat Credit is available to the assessee if the item is used in manufacturing of capital goods or used in manufacturing of their final product. - Commissioner (A) in the impugned order that these items have been used by the respondent in manufacturing of capital goods. - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Entitlement to Cenvat Credit on items like Joist, M.S. Angle, Channel, HSM plates for manufacturing capital goods.

Analysis:
The appeal revolved around the entitlement of the respondent to claim Cenvat Credit on items like Joist, M.S. Angle, Channel, HSM plates used in the manufacturing process of capital goods. The Revenue contended that these items did not qualify as capital goods or part thereof, thus disallowing the Cenvat Credit. The show cause notice issued by the Revenue led to the confirmation of duty demand, interest, and penalty by the adjudicating authority. However, the respondent challenged this decision before the Ld. Commissioner, who allowed the input credit after reviewing the evidence and concluding that the items were indeed used in the manufacturing of capital goods. The Ld. Commissioner relied on a CBEC Circular to support this decision.

The Revenue argued that the items in question were meant for use in items embedded to earth, making them immovable property, and hence, the respondent should not be allowed to claim Cenvat Credit. On the contrary, the respondent's counsel contended that the items were used in manufacturing capital goods, which were further utilized in the production of final products. The counsel also highlighted that the show cause notice was issued during a period of dispute regarding the availability of Cenvat Credit on these items, making the extended limitation period inapplicable.

Upon hearing both parties, the tribunal observed that Cenvat Credit could be availed if the items were used in manufacturing capital goods or the final product. The Ld. Commissioner had examined the usage of the items and found that they were indeed utilized in the production of capital goods, as evidenced by drawings, designs, certifications, and photographs submitted by the respondent. The tribunal noted that the Revenue did not contest this fact. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal as lacking merit.

In conclusion, the tribunal affirmed the entitlement of the respondent to claim Cenvat Credit on items like Joist, M.S. Angle, Channel, HSM plates, as they were established to have been used in the manufacturing process of capital goods, in line with the provisions and requirements for availing such credits.