2017 (12) TMI 889 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - cement (used as inputs for the manufacture of capital goods) - structural items - Held that - in the case of CCE Vs. India Cements Ltd. 2011 (8) TMI 399 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , the cenvat credit was allowed on the cement when it was used for the capital goods - The cement was used as raw material in the instant case. So, the item used is not for civil construction but for the construction of clinker silos which are absolutely necessary for establishing a manufacturing unit for cement, which was the subject matter where the cenvat credit was availed - credit allowed. CENVAT credit - structural items - Held that - the issue has came up before the Tribunal in assessee s own case M/s Lafarge India Pvt. Limited Versus CCE, Raipur 2016 (10) TMI 615 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where the cenvat credit on steel structures (including pipes and accessories), rectangular bar, expansion joint, non standard part and various specific items were allowed - credit allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Recall of Final Order
2. Change of Cause Title in Application
3. Cenvat Credit on Cement for Capital Goods
4. Cenvat Credit on Structural Items

Recall of Final Order:
The Tribunal recalled the Final Order dated 21.4.2017 dismissing the appeal for default after hearing both parties and allowing the ROA application.

Change of Cause Title in Application:
The Misc. application regarding the change of the company's name, as per the permission of the Company Law Board, was allowed for the change of cause title in the appeal.

Cenvat Credit on Cement for Capital Goods:
The appeal was filed against the order disallowing cenvat credit on cement used for manufacturing capital goods. The Tribunal allowed the credit based on the usage of cement for construction of clinker silos essential for establishing a manufacturing unit for cement, citing a precedent from the Hon'ble Madras High Court.

Cenvat Credit on Structural Items:
The issue of cenvat credit on structural items was addressed based on a previous case where credit on steel structures was allowed. The Tribunal referred to the "user test" to determine if the structural items were used for the fabrication of support structures for capital goods, ultimately allowing the credit and setting aside the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the ROA, Misc. application, and appeal, citing precedents and legal principles to justify the decisions on recalling the Final Order, changing the cause title, allowing cenvat credit on cement for capital goods, and permitting credit on structural items based on the "user test."