2017 (8) TMI 152 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - M.S Flats - denial on the ground that the appellant is not having facility of slitting or get slited on job work the M.s Flats in question - Held that - As per the report 19.09.2012, it is fact on record that the appellant is having facility of slitting more than 600 mm M.S Flats in their factory, therefore, cenvat credit on M.S Falts classified under chapter 7208 cannot be denied to the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of cenvat credit on M.S Flats as input for manufacturing M.S Pipes.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the denial of cenvat credit on M.S Flats, crucial for manufacturing M.S Pipes, as the authorities contended that the M.S Flats procured by the appellant did not meet the specific width requirements for their final product. The supplier classified the M.S Flats under chapter 7208, intended for widths of 600 mm or more, while the appellant needed M.S Flats of lesser width. The authorities alleged that since the appellant did not send the M.S Flats for slitting on job work or have them in their factory, the credit was unjustified. Consequently, proceedings were initiated to demand duty, interest, and penalty. Both lower authorities upheld the denial of cenvat credit, leading to the appellant's appeal.

The appellant's counsel argued that despite possessing a slitting facility for M.S Flats in their factory, this crucial fact was disregarded by the lower authorities. The appellant's facility for slitting M.S Flats was a significant point overlooked in the decision to deny the cenvat credit, warranting the reversal of the impugned order.

Upon hearing both sides and evaluating the submissions, the appellate tribunal found that the denial of cenvat credit solely based on the absence of a slitting facility for M.S Flats was unjustified. The tribunal noted that an RTI reply confirmed the existence of a slitting facility for flats over 600 mm in the appellant's unit, contradicting the authorities' claims. Despite the availability of this information in the records, a show cause notice was issued against the appellant, leading to unnecessary litigation. The tribunal highlighted that the adjudication authority's dismissal of the 2012 inspection report detailing the slitting facility as lacking technical specifics was unfounded. The report clearly stated the presence of a slitting facility for M.S Flats over 600 mm in the appellant's factory, rendering the denial of cenvat credit baseless. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief deemed necessary.