2017 (3) TMI 593 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - MS items - MS items were used for fabrication of Storage Tank for Molasses - Held that - The said tanks fall under the definition of capital goods. Therefore, the use of MS items for fabrication of capital goods namely Storage Tank and the credit availed by the appellant under the category of inputs is legal and proper - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Disallowance of credit on MS items under CENVAT rules.

The appeal was filed against the disallowance of credit on MS items by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant, engaged in manufacturing various products falling under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, availed CENVAT credit on MS Beams, Angles, and Plates for the fabrication of a Molasses Storage Tank. The audit conducted by C&AG Officers led to a Show Cause Notice demanding the reversal of credit amounting to ?19,99,454. The appellant contended that the MS items were used for the fabrication of the Tank, which falls under the definition of capital goods. The appellant argued that the credit availed on MS items as inputs was proper and correct, citing relevant rules and case law.

The appellant's consultant highlighted that the credit availed on MS items was in accordance with the definition of 'input' at the relevant time. The appellant emphasized that there was no diversion of the MS items and that the credit availed was legitimate. The appellant also pointed out that the amendment to the CENVAT Credit Rules in 2009 should not be applied retrospectively. Additionally, the appellant argued that even under the definition of capital goods, a Storage Tank is covered without any specific chapter requirement.

The Assistant Commissioner reiterated the findings of the impugned order, stating that the appellant had not disclosed the fabrication of the Molasses Tank in their ER-1 Returns, leading to the denial of credit. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, held that the use of MS items for the fabrication of a Storage Tank for Molasses, which falls under the definition of capital goods, justified the credit availed by the appellant. The Tribunal relied on various judgments to support its decision, including those in the cases of Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd., CCE Visakhapatnam-II Vs. M/s Sai Sahmita Storage Pvt. Ltd., CCE, Mysore Vs. JCL Sugars Ltd, and CCE Bangalore Vs. SLR Steels Ltd. Consequently, the disallowance of credit was deemed unjustified, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential reliefs.