2016 (12) TMI 1443 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - HR sheets, MS Angle, HR Plates, MS Flat, Channel Beams etc. - denial on the ground that the said goods do not qualify as capital goods in terms of the definition of capital goods given under Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - the appellant has produced a C.A. certificate to assert that the said goods have been used for the inputs in the fabrication of Sand plant, Core sand plant, Mould handling system, Casting Cooling Conveyer etc. I have also gone through the contracts with certain parties in respect of installation of machines, the contracts involved certain fabrication work of structures to be done by the appellant - a Chartered Engineer s certificate has been given by the Chartered Engineer without going into the detail of the contracts. The facts regarding quantum of use of inputs in the fabrication of the part components and accessories of the machines needs to be quantified and credit to that extent needs to be allowed - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Credit of duty paid on goods under Chapter 72 denied as capital goods. Appellant claimed goods used for fabrication of structures and machinery parts. Appeal before Tribunal challenging denial of credit.

Analysis:
The appellant, M/s Sound Castings Pvt. Ltd., availed credit of duty paid on various goods falling under Chapter 72, but the credit was denied as the goods were not considered capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The denial was based on the allegation that the goods were used for fabricating structures and supports, not qualifying as capital goods. The appellant argued that the goods were used for expanding their factory and machine shop capacity by procuring machinery like Sand Plant, Core Sand Plant, and Casting Cooling Conveyer. They contended that the steel was essential for fabricating components without which the plant could not operate. Both lower authorities confirmed the demand, leading the appellants to appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant's counsel argued that the materials in question were used partly for construction of structures and partly for manufacturing machinery parts. They emphasized that the materials used for manufacturing parts and components in their factory should be admissible for credit. Reference was made to Explanation 2 of the definition of 'Input' under Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, excluding materials used for construction purposes. The appellant claimed that only a portion of the goods was used for structural purposes, while the rest was utilized for fabricating spares and components falling under Chapter 84 of the Tariff. They highlighted the need for specific findings on the usage of goods beyond structural purposes, which were lacking in the impugned order.

Upon reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal found that the appellant had provided a Chartered Accountant certificate confirming the use of goods in fabricating machinery like Sand Plant and Casting Cooling Conveyer. Contracts with parties also indicated fabrication work undertaken by the appellant to support structures. However, it was noted that the Chartered Engineer's certificate did not delve into the contract details, leading to an erroneous finding that the goods were used in machinery construction. The Tribunal emphasized the quantification of inputs used in manufacturing machine parts and directed the appellants to furnish details of each part, component, and accessory produced using the inputs. The original adjudicating authority was instructed to examine these details and allow credit for materials used in manufacturing machinery components.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for detailed quantification and verification of inputs used in fabricating machinery components, setting aside the earlier order.