2016 (5) TMI 1119 - AT - Central Excise

Entitlement for Cenvat credit - M.S. Angles, M.S. Flat, CTD Bar, M.S. Sheet/Plate - goods used for supporting structure to civil construction work, hence cannot be considered as components, spares and accessories of Capital Goods as per definition of Capital goods specified under Rule 2(a)A of CCR, 2004. Also Cenvat credit was disallowed even for the period prior to amendment made on 7/7/2009 - Held that - in view of the various judgments, it can be seen that the credit in respect of steel items used for fabrication of Cooling bed, Crane Gantry is allowable. On the similar line steel used for fabrication of other capital goods are also allowed. On the issue of whether the amendment in Cenvat credit Rules of 7/7/2009 is retrospective or prospective the same has been distinguished by the judgment of Hon ble Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Scania Steels and Powers Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2011 (9) TMI 972 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT where in it was held that amendment made on 7/7/2009 in the definition of input cannot be applied retrospectively. For this reason Vandana Global judgment of Larger bench reported in 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) stands distinguished. As regard the claim of the appellant on CTD bar, I am of the view that CTD bar invariably used for construction purpose, which cannot be allowed therefore the Cenvat credit is disallowed in respect of CTD bar. Hence, except CTD bar, all other steel material are admissible inputs and credit is allowed. - Decided partly in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Entitlement to Cenvat credit for goods used in civil construction work under Chapter heading 72 of the Central Excise Act, 1985.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case revolves around the eligibility of the appellant for Cenvat credit regarding goods used in civil construction work. Both lower authorities denied the credit, stating that the goods were not components, spares, or accessories of Capital Goods as defined under Rule 2(a)A of CCR, 2004. The appellant argued that the goods were used in the fabrication of capital goods like Cooling bed, Crane Gantry, Pollution Control equipment, furnace, and Rail, which are movable and fall under the definition of capital goods. The appellant cited various judgments supporting their claim, emphasizing that the steel material used in the fabrication of these capital goods should be considered as input and thus eligible for credit.

Judicial Analysis:
The Member (Judicial) carefully analyzed the submissions from both sides and the facts of the case. It was noted that the capital goods in question were movable and not permanently fixed to the earth. The Member highlighted the use of material in the fabrication of each capital good, demonstrating that they were not immovable structures. Referring to previous judgments, the Member concluded that the steel items used for fabrication of various capital goods were eligible for Cenvat credit as inputs. The Member distinguished the Vandana Global judgment and addressed the retrospective or prospective application of the amendment in the Cenvat credit Rules of 7/7/2009. The Member disallowed the credit for CTD bar used for construction purposes but allowed the credit for other steel materials used in the fabrication of movable capital goods. The appeal was partly allowed based on this analysis.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the appellate tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the eligibility of Cenvat credit for steel items used in the fabrication of movable capital goods. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the nature of the capital goods, the use of material, and the applicability of previous judgments to support the decision. The tribunal's decision highlighted the distinction between immovable structures and movable capital goods, ultimately allowing the credit for most steel materials used in the fabrication process.