2017 (6) TMI 966 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - structural items - Held that - learned Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly presumed that all these items have been used for civil structure which is not the fact in this case. All these items have been used as spares, components and accessories for the capital goods and hence covered under Rule 2(a)(A)(iii) and Rule 3 of CCR, 2004 and therefore all these items are rightly falling in the purview of CENVAT credit claimed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of irregularly availed CENVAT credit on structural items.
2. Interpretation of provisions of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
3. Application of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
4. Justification of disallowance of CENVAT credit by the adjudicating authority.
5. Appeal against the Order-in-Original.
6. Consideration of judicial precedents in the decision-making process.
7. Classification of items under Chapter 72 of CETA.
8. Eligibility of items as components, spares, and accessories for capital goods.
9. Assessment of items used as spares, components, and accessories.
10. Compliance with Rule 2(a)(A)(iii) and Rule 3 of CCR, 2004.
11. Relevance of judicial decisions in determining the case.
12. Setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the rejection of irregularly availed CENVAT credit on structural items by the Commissioner(Appeals) under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants, manufacturers of petroleum products, were availing CENVAT credit on inputs, capital goods, and input services under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The dispute arose when the Department noticed irregular credit availed on structural items like plates, channels, and angles falling under Chapter 72 of CETA, 1985. The adjudicating authority disallowed the irregularly availed credit, demanded repayment with interest, and imposed a penalty, leading to the appeal.

The appellant argued that the impugned order failed to appreciate the provisions of the act and disregarded binding judicial precedents. They contended that the items in question were essential spares, accessories, and components of the main plant and machinery, thus eligible for CENVAT credit as capital goods. The appellant provided additional evidence to support their claim, demonstrating the usage of items as accessories and components of the plant and machinery. The appellant emphasized their compliance history and lack of mala fide intent to evade duty, citing relevant decisions to strengthen their case.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the items in dispute were indeed used as components, spares, and accessories of capital goods, as evidenced by the documents submitted by the appellant. The Tribunal disagreed with the presumption made by the Commissioner(Appeals) regarding the usage of items for civil structures, clarifying that the items were utilized as spares, components, and accessories for capital goods. Relying on the cited judicial decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable in law and set it aside, allowing the appeal of the appellant.

In the operative part of the order pronounced on 24/01/2017, the Tribunal overturned the decision, emphasizing the correct classification of items under Chapter 72 of CETA and their eligibility as components, spares, and accessories for capital goods under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal's analysis highlighted the importance of considering judicial precedents and the specific usage of items in determining their eligibility for CENVAT credit, ultimately leading to the favorable outcome for the appellant.