2017 (6) TMI 846 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - M.S. Channels, Angles, Beams etc. - duty paying invoices - input services - transfer of electricity from outside to the factory grid by using cables and other capital goods - Held that - in bringing power from the outside to the factory premises by laying down cables to be used in or in relation to the manufactured of final product, covered by the decision of this Tribunal in Shri Shyam Iron Udyog Pvt. Ltd s case 2009 (8) TMI 593 - CESTAT, KOLKATA , where it was held that the credit had been disallowed on the ground that the cable was used outside the factory but the appellant relied on the various cases in which credit was allowed thus the matter is to be reconsidered afresh, and credit was allowed subject to verification - credit allowed. CENVAT credit on M.S. Angles, Channels, Beams etc, - Held that - issue is covered by the judgement of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in Singhal Enterprises Pvt Ltd s case 2016 (9) TMI 682 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that applying the User Test to the facts in hand, we have no hesitation in holding that the structural items used in the fabrication of support structures would fall within the ambit of Capital Goods as contemplated under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, hence will be entitled to the Cenvat Credit - credit allowed. CENVAT credit on input services used for erection of transmission lines, towers, etc., for bringing electricity from outside the factory premises - Held that - the issue is covered by the Larger Bench decision of Tribunal in Parry Engineering & Electronics Pvt. Ltd s case 2016 (1) TMI 546 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , where Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (6) TMI 82 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT held that Cenvat credit is eligible on maintenance or repair services of Windmills, located away from the factory - credit allowed. Credit availed on invoices, issued by their sales office - denial on the ground that sales office is not registered as the input service distributor during the relevant period - Held that - the issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Dashion Ltd s case 2016 (2) TMI 183 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , where it was held that when it was found that full records were maintained and the irregularity, if at all, was procedural and when it was further found that the records were available for the Revenue to verify the correctness, the Tribunal, in our opinion, rightly did not dis-entitle the assessee from the entire Cenvat credit availed for payment of duty - the mistake is only procedural and credit is allowed. CENVAT credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Alleged wrong availment of CENVAT credit on various counts
- Adjudication of CENVAT credit availed on different items
- Appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)
- Arguments regarding eligibility of CENVAT credit on different items
- Reference to relevant legal judgments for each issue
- Decision on the admissibility of CENVAT credit

Issue 1: Alleged wrong availment of CENVAT credit
The appellant was issued a show-cause notice alleging the wrong availment of CENVAT credit on various counts, including credit on inputs/capital goods, M.S. Channels, Angles, Beams, input services, and service tax paid in respect of Security Services, Courier Services, Maintenance & Repair Services. The Adjudicating Authority allowed credit on certain items but confirmed the balance amount, leading to an appeal filed by both the assessee and the Revenue.

Issue 2: Adjudication of CENVAT credit availed on different items
The Commissioner (Appeals) enhanced the demand for CENVAT credit, leading to the present appeal. The appellant argued for the eligibility of credit on items like M.S. Angles, Channels, Beams, etc., citing relevant legal precedents and judgments. The Revenue reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals), setting the stage for a detailed examination of each item's eligibility for CENVAT credit.

Issue 3: Appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)
The appellant's advocate referenced various legal judgments to support the claim for CENVAT credit on different items, such as the transfer of electricity, fabrication of support structures, and utilization of input services for installation and maintenance of transmission lines. The Revenue supported the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to a thorough analysis by the Tribunal.

Issue 4: Arguments regarding eligibility of CENVAT credit on different items
The Tribunal examined each issue in detail, referring to legal judgments such as the decision in Shri Shyam Iron Udyog Pvt. Ltd's case for bringing power to the factory premises and the judgment in Singhal Enterprises Pvt Ltd's case for eligibility of credit on structural steel items. The Tribunal also considered the Larger Bench decision in Parry Engineering & Electronics Pvt. Ltd's case for input services and the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Dashion Ltd's case for credit availed on invoices from unregistered sales offices.

Issue 5: Reference to relevant legal judgments for each issue
The Tribunal extensively quoted legal precedents and judgments to support its decision on the admissibility of CENVAT credit on different items. Notably, the Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in C.C.E Vs. Dashion Ltd. and the Apex Court's decision in CCE, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., among others, to establish the eligibility of CENVAT credit in the present case.

Issue 6: Decision on the admissibility of CENVAT credit
After considering the arguments, legal precedents, and relevant judgments, the Tribunal concluded that CENVAT credit is admissible to the appellant. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law, bringing the matter to a resolution based on the detailed analysis of the issues involved.