2016 (8) TMI 199 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit - eligible inputs - iron and steel items - Oxygen Gas, Thermal Insulation and welding electrodes - used in fabrication and maintenance work - Held that - cenvat credit on iron and steel items not admissible in the light of the CESTAT Larger Bench decision in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. (2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)) - However, appellant cannot be held to suppress any material facts deliberately to evade duty or to avail ineligible credit and therefore, the demand for extended period was not sustainable - Penalty not imposed. Regarding Oxygen Gas and welding electrodes - Held that - The Supreme Court in the case of Ramala Sahkari Chini Mills 2016 (2) TMI 902 - SUPREME COURT also held cenvat credit on welding electrodes used in maintenance of machines admissible. Matter remanded back for quantification of demand - Decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of cenvat credit on iron and steel items.
2. Denial of credit on Oxygen Gas, Thermal Insulation, and welding electrodes.
3. Applicability of the extended period for demand confirmation.
4. Admissibility of cenvat credit on welding electrodes and oxygen gas for repair/maintenance work.

Issue 1: Disallowance of cenvat credit on iron and steel items:
The appeal challenged the disallowance of cenvat credit amounting to ?2,39,65,676/- on iron and steel items as per Order-in-Original. The appellant contended that a significant portion of this amount pertained to credit on iron and steel items, which had been disallowed previously by the CESTAT Larger Bench in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. The appellant acknowledged the inadmissibility of this credit based on the Larger Bench decision.

Issue 2: Denial of credit on Oxygen Gas, Thermal Insulation, and welding electrodes:
The appeal also addressed the denial of credit amounting to ?6,07,215/- on Oxygen Gas, Thermal Insulation, and welding electrodes. The appellant argued that credit on welding electrodes and oxygen gas used in fabrication and maintenance work should be allowed, citing various legal precedents supporting the admissibility of such credits. The Tribunal considered judgments from different High Courts and the Supreme Court, favoring the allowance of credit on welding electrodes and oxygen gas used in repair and maintenance activities.

Issue 3: Applicability of the extended period for demand confirmation:
Regarding the extended period for demand confirmation, the Tribunal noted that the issue of inadmissibility of the credit on iron and steel items had been conclusively settled by the Larger Bench decision in the Vandana Global case. Citing various judgments, the Tribunal held that in cases where matters are resolved by reference to Larger Benches due to divergent decisions by Division Benches, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked to confirm demands. Therefore, the demand beyond the normal period of one year was considered time-barred, and no penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act would apply.

Issue 4: Admissibility of cenvat credit on welding electrodes and oxygen gas for repair/maintenance work:
The Tribunal analyzed the admissibility of cenvat credit on welding electrodes and oxygen gas used in repair and maintenance activities. While the Department cited a judgment stating that cenvat credit on welding electrodes is not admissible, the Tribunal referred to judgments from various High Courts and the Supreme Court supporting the allowance of such credits. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of allowing credit on welding electrodes and oxygen gas for repair and maintenance purposes, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case for de-novo adjudication.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the disallowance of cenvat credit on iron and steel items, denial of credit on Oxygen Gas, Thermal Insulation, and welding electrodes, the applicability of the extended period for demand confirmation, and the admissibility of cenvat credit on welding electrodes and oxygen gas for repair and maintenance work. The Tribunal's decision emphasized legal precedents and settled laws to support its findings, ultimately allowing the appeal and directing a fresh adjudication by the primary authority.