9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 753 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - MS Sheets, angles, MS plates, channels, MS Flats, Beams, Joining sheets, bars, channels, squares, round bars, etc. falling under Chapter 72 - case of the Revenue is that these items are only structural materials used in construction and therefore are not covered under the definition of capital goods under Rule 2 (a) (A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - It is intriguing that the department sought to nail the tax payer on the ground that they were not able to produce in 2016-17, documents and registers which were more than thirteen years old, of 2003 vintage. It is even more interesting to note that the SCNs themselves states that the apparent irregularity came to light only at the time of verification of Cenvat Credit account by the Department. Nonetheless, if the returns have been regularly filed such a doubt should have been detected or got investigated at the time of filing of returns and certainly not thirteen years later. The entire dispute has been festering, atleast for the last thirteen years, without any light at the end of the dispute tunnel. While the impugned SCNs alleged that the appellants have wrongly availed Cenvat credit on MS sheets, angles, MS plates, channels etc., on the grounds that they are structural materials used in construction, no further illumination is extant in those notices to support such allegation. Nor is there any whisper in any of the notices, as to the exact manner of usage that these disputed items had been put to use by the appellants - when the original SCNs themselves did not in the first place refer to any supporting evidence or corroboration of the allegations therein, after as many as thirteen long years, the onus is now being put on the appellants, that the latter are unable to produce the documents. It was for the Department to have clearly substantiated their allegation with reasoning and evidence, and not the other way around. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Availment of Cenvat credit on items such as MS Sheets, angles, MS plates, channels, etc. 2. Definition of capital goods under Rule 2(a)(A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Alleged suppression of information and invocation of the larger period of limitation. 4. Verification of documents and evidence. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Availment of Cenvat Credit on Structural Items: The primary issue revolves around whether items like MS Sheets, angles, MS plates, channels, and similar materials fall under the definition of capital goods as per Rule 2(a)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue's stance is that these items are structural materials used in construction and thus do not qualify as capital goods. Initially, two Show Cause Notices (SCNs) were issued, which were dropped by the original authorities. However, the Department's appeal was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), citing the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Vandana Global Ltd. The case was remanded by CESTAT Chennai for further examination of the usage of the impugned goods in fabricating machinery parts and components. 2. Definition of Capital Goods: The Tribunal's decision in Vandana Global Ltd. was pivotal, asserting that structural materials used in construction do not qualify as capital goods. However, subsequent judgments, including those from the Supreme Court and various High Courts, have nuanced this interpretation. For instance, the Gujarat High Court in Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd. and the Madras High Court in M/s. Thiru Arooran Sugars have distinguished Vandana Global Ltd., asserting that structural steel items used in fabrication to support machinery can qualify as capital goods under the user test. 3. Alleged Suppression of Information and Larger Period of Limitation: The appellant contended that SCNs issued in 2008 for matters pertaining to 2003 were unjustified, especially since they had regularly filed returns. The Department's reliance on the larger period of limitation due to alleged suppression of information was challenged, with the appellant arguing that the delay in issuing SCNs was unreasonable and lacked substantiation. 4. Verification of Documents and Evidence: Despite multiple verifications, the appellant could not produce all relevant documents due to the significant time lapse. The Department's report noted the inability to verify the Cenvat credit due to the absence of supporting documents. However, the Tribunal observed that the original SCNs lacked specific allegations and evidence regarding the usage of the disputed items. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lay with the Department to substantiate their claims, which they failed to do. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals, noting the evolving judicial interpretations that support the appellant's usage of structural items as capital goods. The Tribunal criticized the prolonged litigation and the Department's failure to substantiate its allegations, highlighting the undue burden placed on the appellant to produce decade-old documents. The appeals were allowed with consequential benefits as per law, emphasizing the need for clear and timely substantiation of allegations by the Department.
|
