2015 (10) TMI 1966 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Held that - Revenue has filed this appeal basically on the ground that the said decision of CESTAT in the case of CCE, Trichy v. India Cements Ltd., (2004 (5) TMI 441 - CESTAT, CHENNAI) does not hold good as the said decision has already been stayed by Hon ble Madras High Court vide its orders dated 6-4-2005 (Interim Stay) and 20-9-2005 (stay made absolute) in the matter of C.M.A. No. 392-395/2005 2011 (8) TMI 399 - MADRAS HIGH COURT (filed by CCE, Trichy against the Tribunal s order in question. - decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Trichy v. India Cements Ltd., (supra) had only been stayed and not been set aside by any competent Court. In any case, that case of CCE, Trichy v. India Cements Ltd., has since been decided Hon ble Madras High Court upholding the Tribunal s decision. Consequently the very basis of the Revenue s appeal collapses. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against disallowance of Cenvat credit for cement and iron steel used in construction of Fly Ash and Clinker Silos.

Analysis:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the disallowance of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 16,48,405 for cement and iron steel used in the construction of Fly Ash and Clinker Silos. The Order-in-Original had disallowed the credit and imposed penalties, which was later set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) citing a previous CESTAT decision. The Revenue filed an appeal against this decision, arguing that the CESTAT decision did not hold ground as it had been stayed by the Madras High Court. However, the Tribunal noted that the decision had only been stayed and not set aside by any competent court. Furthermore, the Madras High Court later upheld the Tribunal's decision, rendering the Revenue's appeal baseless.

Another crucial aspect considered by the Tribunal was the decision in the case of KCP Ltd. v. CCE, Guntur, where it was held that steel plates and sheets used in the manufacture of clinker silos are eligible for Cenvat credit as inputs for capital goods. This case law further supported the eligibility of Cenvat credit for materials used in the construction of silos. Based on these precedents and legal interpretations, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the eligibility of Cenvat credit for the materials in question.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of legal precedents and court decisions in determining the eligibility of Cenvat credit for specific materials used in construction activities. The Tribunal's decision to reject the Revenue's appeal was based on a thorough analysis of relevant case laws and the legal status of previous decisions, ensuring consistency and adherence to established legal principles in tax matters.