2015 (10) TMI 1668 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Bar of limitation - Held that - Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd vs CCE, Raipur - 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) held that goods like cement and steel items used for laying foundation and for building supporting structure, cannot be treated either as input or capital goods or inputs to the final products and therefore no credit of duty paid on the said item can be allowed under the Cenvat Credit Rules. In my considered view, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have examined utilisation of all the items in detail alongwith other issues like limitation. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Availment of cenvat credit on specific items for the foundation and structure of a furnace.
2. Denial of cenvat credit by the Adjudicating Authority.
3. Decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the admissibility of cenvat credit.
4. Applicability of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in a similar case.
5. Remand of the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration.

The judgment addresses the issue of cenvat credit availed by the respondent on HR Coils, MS Channels, and MS Beams used for the foundation and structure of a furnace. Initially, the Adjudicating Authority denied the cenvat credit, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, stating that these items qualify as capital goods, making the cenvat credit admissible. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not address the limitation aspect, deciding solely on merits. The judgment refers to a previous decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, which stated that items like cement and steel used for foundation and structure do not qualify for cenvat credit. The presiding judge opined that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have examined the utilization of all items in detail, including aspects like limitation, before making a decision.

The judgment concludes by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision considering both merit and limitations. The Commissioner (Appeals) is instructed to review the decision of the Larger Bench and the case laws cited by the respondent's Advocate. The judgment emphasizes the need for proper opportunity for hearing before a decision is made. The appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for remand, and the C.O. is disposed of accordingly.