2017 (2) TMI 146 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of Cenvat credit - M.S. Angles, M.S. Channels etc - Input or capital goods - Held that - I find that during the material period there was no intention to take inadmissible Cenvat credit because provision prohibiting such credit was not on the Statute before 06/07/2009. Therefore, there was no intention to avail inadmissible Cenvat credit and since intention could not be established proviso to Sub-section 1 of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 was not invokable in the present case - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat credit on Steel items used for supporting structures.
2. Invocation of extended period for Show Cause Notice.
3. Intention to avail inadmissible Cenvat credit.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal regarding the admissibility of Cenvat credit on M.S. Angles and M.S. Channels by M/s Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed part of the credit but disallowed a portion related to Steel items used for supporting structures, citing a previous Tribunal ruling. The appellant challenged this decision before the Tribunal.

2. The appellant argued that the Show Cause Notice issued in February 2010 did not provide grounds for invoking the extended period from August 2006 to September 2008. The appellant contended that during the period in question, the rules disallowing credit on Steel items were not in effect, and hence, there was no intention to avail inadmissible Cenvat credit.

3. The Tribunal considered the contentions of both parties and reviewed the records. It noted that the disallowed credit of &8377; 12,55,855/- was related to Iron & Steels used for supporting structures, which were later deemed inadmissible. However, since the rules prohibiting such credit were not in place during the relevant period, the Tribunal found that there was no established intention to avail inadmissible credit. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the portion of the Order-in-Appeal disallowing the credit amounting to &8377; 12,55,855/-.

This judgment clarifies the admissibility of Cenvat credit on specific items and highlights the importance of the intention to avail credit in determining its admissibility. It also emphasizes the significance of the rules in force during the relevant period when assessing the validity of credit availed by the appellant.