2017 (1) TMI 287 - AT - Central Excise

Eligibility of CENVAT credit - cement and TOR steel - construction of plant and machinery - Held that - The cement is mainly used in the construction of kiln piers raft/footing, columns, slabs for foundation, foundation for raw mill hoper below the ground, columns in the hoper building, RCC columns, retaining wall in cold dump, columns and wall in cooler building etc. As can be seen all these are civil constructions, though with reference to the overall expansion of production capacity by the appellant. Use of cement in these structures cannot be considered as used cenvatable inputs in the fabrication or manufacture of any capital goods. The same reasoning applies to TOR Steel which is used alongwith cement in creating these structures - the credit on cement and TOR steel availed by the appellant is not justifiable under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - cement and TOR steel cannot be considered as inputs which are used in the fabrication or manufacture of capital goods - credit disallowed - appeal rejected - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility for Cenvat credit of duty paid on cement and TOR steel used for construction of plant and machinery in factory premises.

Analysis:
1. Background: The appeals deal with the eligibility of the appellant for Cenvat credit of duty paid on cement and TOR steel used for construction of plant and machinery in their factory premises. The dispute revolves around whether these items qualify as inputs for Cenvat credit.

2. Appellant's Argument: The appellant contended that cement and TOR steel were essential for the erection and fabrication of plant and machinery, making them eligible for credit. They argued that these items were used in support structures necessary for the manufacturing process, citing relevant case laws to support their claim.

3. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue argued that cement and TOR steel are construction materials primarily used for civil construction and not for the fabrication of capital goods. They emphasized that the case laws cited by the appellant did not directly apply to the present scenario.

4. Judgment: The Tribunal examined the usage of cement and TOR steel by the appellant in creating various structures like foundations, pillars, and columns. It was observed that these materials were used in civil constructions, which do not qualify as components or accessories of machinery. The Tribunal held that the appellant's claim for Cenvat credit on cement and TOR steel was legally unsustainable.

5. Analysis of TOR Steel: The Tribunal clarified that TOR steel is typically used in civil construction work for creating permanent structures and, therefore, does not qualify as an input for Cenvat credit. The Tribunal emphasized that the legal requirement for eligible inputs under the Cenvat Credit Rules was not met in this case.

6. Evaluation of Case Laws: The Tribunal addressed the appellant's reliance on various case laws related to MS Steel items used in fabrication, highlighting that the applicability of these precedents was not relevant to the present dispute concerning cement and TOR steel.

7. Conclusion: Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeals, concluding that cement and TOR steel used by the appellant for civil constructions were not eligible for Cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal emphasized that the materials did not qualify as inputs used in the manufacture or fabrication of capital goods, as required by the rules.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal's evaluation of the materials in question, and the ultimate decision regarding the eligibility of cement and TOR steel for Cenvat credit in the context of the appellant's activities.