9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1806 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - inputs/capital goods - Wide Screen Cloth - Conveyer Belt - V. Belt - suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT - The present issue involved in this appeal is no more res-integra in view of the Tribunal s decision in the case of M/S FACOR ALLOYS LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER C CE, GUNTUR 2016 (12) TMI 645 - CESTAT HYDERABAD where it was held that the subject goods are spare parts of capital goods which are used in the manufacturing activity by the appellant. Further, it is also seen that for earlier period, vide Order-in-Original dated 23-7-2010 the adjudicating authority has allowed credit on all these subject items and dropped the proceedings. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
- Classification of certain goods as eligible for CENVAT credit under Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. - Imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. - Applicability of previous Tribunal decisions on similar matters to the current case. - Allegations of suppression by the appellant leading to the issuance of a show-cause notice. Analysis: Issue 1: Classification of Goods for CENVAT Credit The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron, availed CENVAT credit on Wide Screen Cloth, Conveyer Belt, and V. Belt. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of CENVAT credit, stating these items did not qualify as inputs under Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, the appellant argued that these goods were used in the manufacturing process and thus eligible for credit as either inputs or capital goods. The appellant relied on Tribunal decisions such as Facor Alloys Ltd. Vs. CCE and others to support their claim. The Tribunal examined the usage of the disputed items in machinery/capital goods within the factory and found them to be spare parts of capital goods essential for the manufacturing process. The Tribunal concluded that the goods in question were indeed eligible for CENVAT credit, overturning the previous decisions. Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty The Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty under Rule 15(2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Tribunal set aside the penalty along with the demand for CENVAT credit, as it ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the eligibility of the goods for credit. Therefore, the penalty imposed was not upheld due to the Tribunal's decision on the classification of the goods. Issue 3: Applicability of Previous Tribunal Decisions The appellant contended that the facts of the case aligned with previous Tribunal decisions, indicating that a similar view should be taken in this appeal. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, citing the decision in Facor Alloys Ltd., which established the eligibility of spare parts of capital goods for CENVAT credit. By applying the principles set forth in previous decisions, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, providing them with the consequential benefit. Issue 4: Allegations of Suppression The appellant argued that there was no suppression on their part warranting the issuance of a show-cause notice. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue explicitly in the judgment but focused on the classification of goods for CENVAT credit. As the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on the main issue, the question of suppression leading to the notice became secondary and did not impact the final decision. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, setting aside the impugned orders and granting them consequential benefits based on the eligibility of the disputed goods for CENVAT credit as spare parts of capital goods.
|
