2016 (2) TMI 148 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT credit on MS Plates/ Channels, HR Plates, Bars, Rounds, Joit etc. - demand of CENVAT credit alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of CENVAT credit - Held that - The capital goods as defined under Rule 2(a) of the Rules covers the components, spares and accessories of the machinery as specified in Clause (i) and (ii) of the said definition. The eligibility of the Cenvat Credit of capital goods is depending upon the utilisation of the said materials. In the present case, the appellant initially took a stand that these items were used in the machinery. In the Chartered Engineer certificate, it is certified that these items were used as components, spare parts of the machineries. So, it is required that the adjudicating authority should have examined the utilisation of the items and thereafter the order should have been passed. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order is set-aside. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after examining the utilisation of these items.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Denial of CENVAT credit on specific items used in manufacturing.
2. Classification of items under Central Excise Tariff Act.
3. Interpretation of Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
4. Utilization of items in machinery and eligibility for CENVAT credit.

Analysis:

1. The appellants were involved in manufacturing Inorganic Chemicals and faced a show cause notice proposing to deny CENVAT credit on certain items. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of CENVAT credit and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.

2. The learned Authorised Representative argued that the items in question were not covered under the definition of capital goods as per Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. These items were classified under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, not falling under the relevant clause of the Rules. Reference was made to a previous Tribunal decision and a Chartered Engineer certificate.

3. The Chartered Engineer certificate stated that the items were essential components for running machinery, not for manufacturing capital goods. The definition of capital goods under Rule 2(a) includes components, spares, and accessories of machinery. The utilization of items determines eligibility for CENVAT credit. The appellant initially claimed these items were used in machinery, supported by the certificate.

4. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority should have examined the actual utilization of the items before passing the order. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision after scrutinizing the utilization of the items. The appellant was granted a hearing opportunity before a new order is issued.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the correct classification and utilization of items in machinery to determine eligibility for CENVAT credit, emphasizing the importance of thorough examination before passing orders.