2015 (10) TMI 1254 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Held that - when the queries were raised to the respondent, it was replied by the respondent that these items have been used by the respondent for fabrication of induction furnace (Capital goods). This fact has not been disputed by the Revenue either in the show cause notice or during adjudication. In these circumstances, I observe that Ld. Commissioner (A) has verified the facts of the case and allowed Cenvat Credit correctly to the respondent. With these observations, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the impugned order allowing Cenvat Credit on specific items
- Verification of records and classification of items as capital goods or inputs
- Challenge to the denial of Cenvat Credit and imposition of penalty
- Adjudication by Ld. Commissioner (A) and subsequent appeal

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by Revenue against an order allowing Cenvat Credit on items like MS Angle, Channel, Beams Pipes, Joints, etc. The respondent had availed the credit during a specific period and faced queries during an audit regarding the classification of these items as capital goods or inputs. The audit raised concerns that the items might not qualify as capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. A show cause notice was issued, leading to the denial of Cenvat Credit, confirmation of duty demand, interest imposition, and penalty. The respondent challenged this decision before the Ld. Commissioner (A), who examined the records and allowed the Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 12,40,024.

During the proceedings, it was noted that the respondent had used the items for the fabrication of an induction furnace, categorizing them as capital goods. This assertion was not contested by Revenue during the show cause notice or adjudication. Consequently, the Ld. Commissioner (A) correctly verified the facts and granted the Cenvat Credit to the respondent. The appellate tribunal found no issues with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal filed by Revenue. The cross objection filed by the Respondent was also disposed of in the same judgment.