2017 (1) TMI 1742 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Cement - TOR Steel Bars - items are said to have been used in structural foundation to support the power plant - HELD THAT - An identical issue came before the Division Bench of this Tribunal and was decided in M/S SHREE CEMENT LIMITED VERSUS CCE, JAIPUR 2017 (1) TMI 287 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that cement and TOR steel cannot be considered as inputs which are used in the fabrication or manufacture of capital goods and credit cannot be allowed. Credit cannot be allowed - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Disallowance of Cenvat credit on Cement and TOR Steel Bars used in structural foundation for a power plant.

Analysis:
The appeal challenges the disallowance of Cenvat credit on Cement and TOR Steel Bars used in the construction of a power plant's structural foundation. The appellant argues that these items were essential for the fabrication, repair, and maintenance of platform/supporting structures of capital goods. The appellant relies on the definition of inputs under Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, emphasizing that the disputed period predates an amendment excluding certain materials for construction purposes. Reference is made to a Supreme Court decision highlighting that immovability of capital goods does not affect Cenvat credit eligibility. The appellant also cites various cases to support the claim that Steel items used in fabrication of support structures for capital goods are eligible for Cenvat credit.

The opposing argument contends that the Cement and TOR Steel Bars were used for civil construction and not for the fabrication of capital goods. The dispute revolves around whether these materials qualify for Cenvat credit based on their usage in the construction of the foundation supporting capital goods like plant machinery and power plant. The Tribunal's analysis of a similar issue in a previous case emphasizes that the Cement and TOR Steel were used in creating permanent civil structures like pillars, columns, and foundations, which do not qualify as components or accessories of identified capital goods. The Tribunal rejects the appellant's claim, stating that the Cement and TOR Steel were not used in the manufacture of capital goods, thus disallowing the Cenvat credit.

The Tribunal's decision is based on the finding that the Cement and TOR Steel were used in creating civil structures, not in the fabrication or manufacture of capital goods. The reliance on the Supreme Court decision related to a different context is deemed inappropriate, as the Cement and TOR Steel were considered construction raw materials essential for civil structures, not for capital goods. The Tribunal rejects the appeal, upholding the disallowance of Cenvat credit on Cement and TOR Steel Bars, as they were not deemed inputs used in the fabrication or manufacture of capital goods. The decision aligns with a previous final order on a similar issue, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and upholding of the impugned order disallowing the Cenvat credit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision affirms the disallowance of Cenvat credit on Cement and TOR Steel Bars used in the construction of civil structures supporting capital goods, as they were not considered inputs directly used in the fabrication or manufacture of capital goods. The judgment emphasizes the distinction between materials used for civil construction and those used for capital goods, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal.