2017 (12) TMI 324 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - plates, shape and section, M.S. Angles, G.P. Coil/Sheet, H.R. Coil, C.R. Strip, M.S. Channels, etc - denial on the ground that these items had been used either for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery or modification of their existing plant and machinery - movability/marketibility - Held that - the issue of Cenvat credit on the items in question has been decided in favor of appellant-assessee, in the case of India Cement Ltd. Vs CESTAT, Chennai 2015 (3) TMI 661 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein the goods had been used as support structural of capital goods or for modification of plant and machinery - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of Cenvat credit for steel items used in the manufacturing process.

Analysis:
The appeal arises from an Order-in-Original issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow, disallowing Cenvat credit on items like plates, shapes, sections, coils, strips, and channels used by the appellant in manufacturing V.P. sugar and molasses. The Revenue contended that these items were used for repair, maintenance, or modification of plant and machinery and were not eligible for credit. Additionally, it was argued that items embedded in the earth did not meet the criteria for movability and marketability. The Revenue also sought to invoke the extended period of limitation.

The Original Authority upheld the disallowance of credit, stating that items used for repair, maintenance, or modification of plant and machinery were not eligible for credit. It was further noted that items embedded in the earth were not considered capital goods. The Commissioner also ruled that items falling under Chapter 72 and 73 were ineligible for credit. In response, the appellant appealed to the Tribunal.

During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that the steel items were used for expanding the plant's capacity and as structural support for capital goods. Reference was made to a previous decision by the Tribunal and a judgment by the Madras High Court to support the claim. The appellant contended that the demand was time-barred as there was no suppression on their part, and they had been regularly submitting monthly returns.

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant. Citing previous cases, the Tribunal noted that the steel items were used as support structures for capital goods or for modifying plant and machinery, making them eligible for credit. Reference was made to a judgment by the Rajasthan High Court, which held that plates used for machinery repair and maintenance, subsequently used in manufacturing excisable goods, were eligible for credit. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, granting the appellant consequential relief in accordance with the law.