2016 (11) TMI 932 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - HR plates, base plates, MS channels, MS angles etc. - Held that - The period involved is April 2012 to November 2012. The definition of input w.e.f. 01/04/2011 has drastically changed the scope of the definition whereby it says that input means all goods used in the manufacture of final products. The Department does not have any evidence to establish that subject items were used for any other purpose other than that as explained by the appellant. Credit has sought to be denied for the reasons that these goods do not fall under the definition of capital goods/inputs. It has to be seen that the process of manufacture cannot be carried out without the fabrication of these items like cable trays, pulp mill and storage racks etc as submitted by the appellant - appellants are eligible for credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of CENVAT credit on steel items by the original authority.
2. Appeal against the partial denial of credit.
3. Interpretation of the definition of "input" under the relevant law.
4. Examination of the use of subject items in the manufacturing process.
5. Application of precedents and decisions in similar cases to determine eligibility for credit.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing paper and paper boards, faced a show-cause notice proposing to deny credit on steel items received for factory expansion. The original authority partially allowed credit but disallowed credit on certain MS items, leading to the appeal.

2. The appellant's counsel argued for credit based on a Chartered Engineer's certificate specifying the use of subject items in fabrication of various components. The authority allowed credit for some items but denied for others. The appellant relied on relevant decisions to support their claim.

3. The Tribunal examined the definition of "input" post-April 2011, emphasizing goods used in manufacturing final products. Lack of evidence from the Department to prove misuse of items supported the appellant's claim for credit.

4. The Tribunal noted the essential role of items like cable trays, pulp mill, and storage racks in the manufacturing process, as explained by the appellant. Relying on precedents and decisions, including those mentioned in the case, the Tribunal held the appellants eligible for credit.

5. Citing relevant judgments like Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., India Cements Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai, and Ramala Sahakari Chini Mill Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the integral role of items in the manufacturing process for determining credit eligibility.