2018 (1) TMI 152 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - capital goods - Pig Moulds, MS Plates, Channels, MS Rounds, TMT Bars, Lancing Pips - MS Plates, Channels, TMT Bars etc. - Held that - the First Appellate Authority in the impugned order in Paragraph 7, 8 & 9 has given detailed reasoning as to why according to him CENVAT credit on Central Excise Duty on this items needs to be allowed - It can be seen from the above reproduced findings this factual matrix is not contradicted in any form by the Revenue - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing supplementary appeals, eligibility for CENVAT credit on various items like Pig Moulds, MS Plates, Channels, MS Rounds, TMT Bars, Lancing Pips, admissibility of credit under 'inputs' and 'capital goods' categories, interpretation of Rule 2(a) and Rule 2(k) of CCR 2004, reliance on previous case laws for determining eligibility, requirement of Chartered Engineer's Certificate for rectification of credit category.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of condonation of delay in filing supplementary appeals by the Revenue. The Tribunal, after considering the circumstances, condones the delay since the main appeal was filed on time. This procedural aspect is crucial in ensuring the proper adjudication of the case.

The main issue revolves around the eligibility of the respondent to avail CENVAT credit on various items like Pig Moulds, MS Plates, Channels, MS Rounds, TMT Bars, and Lancing Pips. The Tribunal examines the arguments presented by both sides and reviews the records to determine the eligibility based on the definitions and rules under the CCR 2004.

The judgment delves into the admissibility of credit under the categories of 'inputs' and 'capital goods' for the different items in question. The Tribunal scrutinizes the usage of these items and their classification based on whether they are integral to the manufacturing process or support structures for capital goods. The interpretation of Rule 2(a) and Rule 2(k) of the CCR 2004 plays a significant role in determining the admissibility of credit.

Furthermore, the Tribunal considers the precedents set by previous case laws, such as the CCE New Delhi Vs Haryana Concast Ltd. and the Saraswati Sugar Mills case, to guide the decision-making process. These legal references provide a framework for interpreting the rules and definitions in the context of the present case.

The requirement of a Chartered Engineer's Certificate for rectifying the categorization of credit from 'capital goods' to 'inputs' is highlighted in the judgment. The Tribunal emphasizes the importance of proper documentation and certification to support the claim for CENVAT credit and rectification of any errors in the initial categorization.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upholds the impugned order based on the detailed reasoning provided by the First Appellate Authority and the lack of contradictory evidence from the Revenue. The decision affirms the eligibility of the respondent to avail CENVAT credit on specific items as inputs under Rule 2(k) of the CCR 2004. The judgment underscores the importance of adherence to legal definitions, precedents, and documentation requirements in matters concerning tax credits and duty liabilities.