2015 (10) TMI 1127 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - whether the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit on the items mentioned here in above in para 1 or not as capital goods or input thereof - Held that - On going through the certificate produced by the Charted Accountant which shows that except items iron and steel bars all other items are used for either fabrication of capital goods or part of capital goods or used as input by the appellant in manufacturing of the final product. Revenue has not produced any contrary evidence to the report of the Charted Engineer. - Admittedly in this case whether the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit on the items discussed here in above in para 1 is a fact whether they have been used by the appellant for fabrication of capital goods or part of capital goods or used as input in manufacturing of final product or not. This fact is ascertainable by the report of the Charted Engineer produced before me. Therefore, except for the iron and steel bars I allow Cenvat Credit to the appellant as usage of iron and steel bars have not been discussed by the Charted Engineer in his report. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also contested the issue of limitation on the ground that show cause notice has been issued on 24.02.2012 for the period 2007-08 to 2011-12 as issue was settled by this Tribunal in the case in the case of Vandana Global 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) . Therefore, I hold that for the period prior to 30.04.2010 extended period of limitation is not invokable. In these circumstances, whatever the demand pertains to the period 30.04.2010 till 31.03.2012 pertaining to denial of Cenvat Credit iron and steel bars used by the appellant is denied - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of Cenvat Credit on steel items
- Interpretation of Rule 2 A of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004
- Usage of steel items for fabrication of capital goods or as inputs
- Production of documentary evidence
- Applicability of previous case law on the current case
- Limitation period for issuing show cause notice

Analysis:

The appellant appealed against the order denying Cenvat Credit on steel items, arguing that these items were used for fabrication of capital goods or as inputs in manufacturing. The appellant presented a Chartered Engineer Certificate to support their claim. The respondent opposed, stating that the items were neither input nor capital goods, and the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence. The issue was whether the appellant was entitled to Cenvat Credit on the mentioned items as capital goods or inputs.

The Member examined the Certificate and found that, except for iron and steel bars, all other items were used for fabrication of capital goods or as part of capital goods. No contrary evidence was presented by the revenue. The Member distinguished a previous case cited by the respondent, stating it did not apply to the current facts. Cenvat Credit was allowed except for iron and steel bars, as their usage was not discussed in the report. The Member also addressed the limitation issue, holding that the extended period of limitation was not applicable before a certain date.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of, allowing Cenvat Credit to the appellant for most items based on the Chartered Engineer's report. Iron and steel bars were denied credit due to lack of discussion in the report. The limitation period for issuing show cause notice was also clarified, providing a comprehensive resolution to the issues raised in the case.