2017 (1) TMI 230 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT credit - MS rods, Ms angles, channels, joists, beams, aluminium sheets etc. - denial for the reason that MS items like angles etc., do not fall within the definition of capital goods or inputs - Held that - It is seen that the MS items have been used for fabrication of storage tanks which are used for storing water, chemicals, finished products, pulp etc. The definition of capital goods includes the word storage tanks - In the case of ICL Sugars Ltd., 2011 (4) TMI 1065 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka had occasion to analyse whether storage tanks are capital goods and whether the credit is admissible even though they are fixed to the earth. The issue was held in favor of the assessee Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of CENVAT Credit on MS items used for fabrication of storage tanks.
2. Interpretation of whether storage tanks qualify as capital goods.
3. Applicability of previous legal precedents on the admissibility of credit.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of CENVAT Credit on MS items used for fabrication of storage tanks
The case involved the appellants availing CENVAT Credit on MS rods, angles, channels, etc., for the fabrication of storage tanks. The original authority disallowed a significant amount of credit, leading to a penalty. The appellant contended that the MS items were essential for constructing storage tanks used for various purposes like storing water, chemicals, and finished products. The Chartered Engineer Certificate provided by the appellant detailed the usage of MS items in the construction of storage tanks, supporting their claim for credit.

Issue 2: Interpretation of whether storage tanks qualify as capital goods
The respondent argued that when MS items are used in fabricating storage tanks, they become fixed to the earth, making them immovable property and thus not eligible for credit as capital goods. However, the appellant argued that storage tanks fall within the definition of capital goods, citing legal precedents and decisions like the case of M/s India Cements Ltd. The Tribunal analyzed the purpose and usage of the storage tanks in the manufacturing process and concluded that storage tanks indeed qualify as capital goods, especially when essential to the manufacturing process.

Issue 3: Applicability of previous legal precedents on the admissibility of credit
The Tribunal reviewed previous legal precedents and decisions cited by both parties to determine the admissibility of credit on MS items used for fabrication of capital goods like storage tanks. It noted that the decision in the case of M/s Vandana Global Ltd. was no longer considered good law, as discussed in the case of CC & CE, Vizag Vs APP Mills Ltd. The Tribunal also referred to other cases where the use of MS items for the fabrication of capital goods was deemed eligible for credit, emphasizing the importance of the Chartered Engineer Certificate in establishing the essential nature of MS items in the manufacturing process.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the disallowance of credit on MS items used for fabrication of storage tanks was unjustified. Relying on legal precedents and the essential role of storage tanks in the manufacturing process, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, granting consequential reliefs to the appellants.