9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 328 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - M/s Channel, Angle, Beam, Structural Steel etc. used in fabrication of capital goods within the factory - Held that - the Principal Bench at Delhi in the case of Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd 2016 (9) TMI 682 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has 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. The Appellant should establish the said use by adducing evidences - the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the claim of the appellant on the eligibility of credit on the aforesaid items - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
- Eligibility of CENVAT credit on structural steel items used in fabrication of support structures for holding capital goods within the factory. - Requirement of Chartered Engineer's Certificate to support the claim of credit. - Interpretation of the definition of 'input' under Rule 2(k) of CCR, 2004. - Application of the 'user test' to determine if the structural items qualify as capital goods. Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on Structural Steel Items: The appellant availed CENVAT credit on various structural steel items used in the fabrication of support structures for holding capital goods within the factory. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand for recovery, stating that these items were not eligible for credit. The appellant argued that the items were used as structures for holding and fabricating capital goods, making them eligible for credit under Rule 2(k) of CCR, 2004. Reference was made to a judgment by the Principal Bench at Delhi, supporting the admissibility of credit for such fabrication. However, the absence of a Chartered Engineer's Certificate supporting the use of these items was acknowledged by the appellant. Requirement of Chartered Engineer's Certificate: The Revenue contended that the appellant's claim lacked supporting evidence, including the absence of a Chartered Engineer's Certificate. It was suggested that the matter should be remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification of the appellant's claim regarding the eligibility of credit on the structural steel items used in fabrication. Interpretation of the Definition of 'Input': The Principal Bench at Delhi, in a previous judgment, discussed the admissibility of credit on similar structural steel items used in the fabrication of support structures for capital goods. The Bench highlighted the importance of the 'user test' in determining whether the items qualify as capital goods. Reference was made to a decision by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court regarding the retrospective application of an amendment defining the term 'Input' under Rule 2(a). The judgment emphasized the need to satisfy the 'user test' to establish whether goods can be considered as capital goods. Application of the 'User Test': The Tribunal considered the 'user test' in light of the appellant's case, where structural items were used in the fabrication of support structures for capital goods. It was concluded that the structural items fell within the ambit of 'Capital Goods' as defined under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of support structures for the smooth functioning of capital goods and concluded that the fabricated goods using such structural items qualified as parts of the relevant machines. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for further examination, with directions for the appellant to provide evidence, including a certificate from a Chartered Engineer, to support their claim. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of establishing the use of structural items through appropriate evidence. The adjudicating authority was directed to decide the issue based on the settled legal principles, including the application of the 'user test' as discussed in previous judgments. All issues were kept open for further consideration.
|
