2017 (5) TMI 870 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - structural items namely angle, channels, sheets bar, beam etc. - denial on the ground that these inputs will not fall under the definition of capital goods - Held that - identical issue decided in appellants own case Commissioner of Central Excise Versus M/s. ACC Ltd. 2016 (8) TMI 888 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that the items in question were used in fabrication of the capital goods in which case even Larger Bench decision of Vandana Global Ltd. 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) , which allows the credit, does not stand rebutted or even challenged by the Revenue - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility to avail CENVAT credit on structural items like angle, channels, sheets bar, beam
- Interpretation of previous judgments by the Tribunal and High Courts

Analysis:

1. Eligibility for CENVAT Credit:
The appeal questioned the eligibility of the appellant to avail CENVAT credit on structural items such as angle, channels, sheets bar, and beam. Both lower authorities had denied the credit, stating these items did not qualify as capital goods. The appellant argued citing a previous order by the same Bench and judgments in related cases where CENVAT credit was allowed. The Departmental Representative contended that the appellant was ineligible for the credit, referencing a Larger Bench decision and a High Court ruling.

2. Previous Judgments Interpretation:
The presiding judge, after considering arguments from both sides, highlighted the relevance of previous judgments. The judge noted that in a similar case involving the appellant, the Tribunal had allowed CENVAT credit, supported by decisions from the High Courts of Gujarat and Chhattisgarh. The judge emphasized that the High Court of Chhattisgarh had consistently ruled in favor of allowing CENVAT credit on similar items in various cases involving the appellant and their sister concern. Based on the settled issue in favor of the appellant by the High Courts, the judge deemed the impugned order unsustainable and set it aside, ultimately allowing the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the key issues of eligibility for CENVAT credit on specific structural items and the significance of interpreting previous judgments to support the decision in favor of the appellant.