2016 (10) TMI 674 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT credit - structural items like joints, rails, angles, channel plates, etc. - Held that - the subject steel items have been used for manufacturing of crane gentry, slag pots and metal pouring fixtures; all these items are established as capital goods; Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) and its explanation 2 makes clear that any input items used for manufacture of capital goods, which are further used in the factory for manufacture would be covered as inputs under Rule 2(k) of the CCRs. The yardstick of user test has been evolved clarifying that user of the subject items will determine whether the Cenvat credit could be claimed with reference to the said items. After applying the user test , I am of the considered view that the subject items namely, angle, channel, plate, joist, rail, etc., which have been used for manufacturing various capital goods are eligible for the Cenvat credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against disallowance of Cenvat credit on structural items like joists, rails, angles, channel plates; Interpretation of Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; Applicability of case laws supporting both sides.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the disallowance of Cenvat credit on structural items used in manufacturing capital goods like crane gentry, slag pot, and metal pouring fixtures. The appellant argued that these items qualified for credit under Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The advocate cited relevant case laws to support their position, emphasizing the usage of the iron and steel items in manufacturing capital goods.

The Revenue contended that the subject items were neither input nor capital goods, thus not eligible for Cenvat credit. They relied on specific decisions to support their argument, highlighting that the appellant was not entitled to the credit.

The Tribunal carefully considered the facts, submissions, and case laws presented by both sides. It noted that the subject steel items were used in manufacturing established capital goods, aligning with Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal referenced various judicial decisions, including those by the Supreme Court and High Courts, discussing the definition of input and capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The user test was applied to determine the eligibility for Cenvat credit, following precedents set by previous judgments.

Based on the observations from relevant case laws and the application of the user test, the Tribunal concluded that the subject items, such as angles, channels, plates, joists, and rails, used in manufacturing various capital goods were indeed eligible for Cenvat credit. The Tribunal found the case laws cited by the Revenue not applicable to the present situation. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis, referencing legal provisions and judicial precedents, resulted in a favorable judgment for the appellant regarding the eligibility of Cenvat credit on the structural items in question. The decision highlighted the importance of the user test in determining the admissibility of Cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.