2018 (1) TMI 411 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - capital goods, namely, Welding Rods, Stretchable Basket, Loctite, Parts of Fluorescent Lamp, Vajra Adhesives, Nilkamal Plastic Crates, Pallete Containers, GP Sheets etc. - Held that - issue covered by the decision in the case of AMBUJA CEMENTS EASTERN LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIPUR 2010 (4) TMI 429 - CHHAITISGARH HIGH COURT , where it was held that welding electrodes used in repair and maintenance of plant and machinery are inputs as defined under Rule 2(g) defined in the rule, and thus entitled for cenvat credit - credit allowed. CENVAT credit - compensation received from insurance company on the damaged inputs/ capital goods - Held that - merely because compensation has been received from insurance company on the damaged inputs/ capital goods without any evidence on record that the same were not put to use, credit cannot be denied - credit allowed. Also, the credit on the old and used ball bearings cleared as scrap by the appellant, is eligible. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order-in-appeal passed by Commissioner of Central Excise
- Allegations of wrong availment of cenvat credit
- Denial of credit on debit notes
- Availment of cenvat credit on various capital goods
- Compensation received for damaged goods
- Sale of old ball bearings as scrap

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, alleging wrong availment of cenvat credit amounting to ?1,00,179. The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of fabrics, was issued a Show Cause Notice regarding the alleged wrong availment of credit. The demand was confirmed with interest and penalty after adjudication. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), which was rejected, leading to the present appeal before the tribunal.

2. The appellant's advocate submitted that the denial of credit amounting to ?15,853 on debit notes was not disputed. Regarding the cenvat credit of ?41,332 availed on various capital goods, the advocate cited judgments from the tribunal in support of the admissibility of credit on items such as welding rods, stretchable baskets, parts of fluorescent lamps, adhesives, plastic crates, and GP sheets. The tribunal found these items to be capital goods, making the credit admissible.

3. The advocate further argued that the demand of ?35,294 should not be upheld solely based on receiving compensation for damaged goods. He contended that unless there is evidence that the damaged goods were not used after repair, the credit cannot be denied. Citing a decision from the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, he supported the admissibility of credit on damaged capital goods used after repair. Additionally, he referred to a judgment from the Madras High Court to support the eligibility of credit on old ball bearings sold as scrap.

4. The Revenue's representative reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) during the proceedings.

5. The tribunal analyzed the arguments and cited judgments presented by the appellant's advocate. It held that the credit availed on various capital goods and damaged goods was admissible based on the evidence provided. The tribunal also found the credit on old ball bearings sold as scrap to be eligible, in line with the judgment of the Madras High Court. Consequently, the impugned order was modified to allow the eligibility of credit as mentioned above, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.