2017 (1) TMI 710 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - whether the appellant is eligible for the credit on the MS items which were used for manufacture of capital goods? - Held that - Merely denying the credit on the ground that the appellant has not furnished sufficient documents is not proper. The appellant has been able to establish that the subject items have been used for manufacture of capital goods which are integrally connected to the process of manufacture. ₹ 24,679/- was availed on welding electrodes for repair and maintenance. Further the subject items when used for fabrication of capital goods would fall under the category of inputs. The Department does not dispute the receipt of subject items into the factory. So also there is no case that subject items were diverted in any manner - the appellant is eligible for the credit to the tune of ₹ 2,17,188/- - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Irregular availment of credit on MS items for the manufacture of capital goods.
- Disallowance of credit by the original authority.
- Verification of usage of subject items for manufacturing capital goods.
- Eligibility of the appellant for credit on MS items.

Analysis:

Irregular Availment of Credit on MS Items for Capital Goods:
The appellants were issued show-cause notices for alleged irregular availment of credit amounting to ?6,62,479 covering different periods. The original authority partially allowed credit but disallowed credit worth ?2,17,188 for specific periods and an additional ?84,025 for MS items. The appellant argued that the denied credit was for capital goods integral to the manufacturing process, including items like D. Stone assembly system, hoppers, idler, pollution control equipment, etc. The Department contended that proof of usage was lacking.

Verification of Usage and Eligibility for Credit:
The appellant submitted detailed responses and evidence of using the subject items for manufacturing capital goods, supported by photographs. However, the Department did not conduct verification during adjudication, relying solely on the lack of documents. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had established the usage of subject items for manufacturing capital goods, which were essential to the manufacturing process. The appellant's eligibility for credit amounting to ?2,17,188 was upheld, emphasizing that the subject items qualified as inputs for fabrication of capital goods.

Decision and Disallowance of Credit:
The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of credit worth ?2,17,188 in both appeals, recognizing the appellant's compliance with usage requirements. However, the disallowance of ?84,025 in one appeal was sustained. Consequently, one appeal was partly allowed, while the other was fully allowed with any consequential reliefs. The judgment highlighted the importance of verifying usage and establishing eligibility for credit on items used in the manufacturing process.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD emphasizes the significance of providing evidence of usage and eligibility for credit on specific items integral to the manufacturing of capital goods, ultimately resulting in the partial or full allowance of credits based on the established criteria and verification processes.