2018 (2) TMI 568 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - inputs - Angles Channels and Joists - Revenue in the Grounds of Appeal stated that the assesse has claimed the manufacture of different Capital Goods in their factory. However they did not produce the copy of Work Order or Agreement with any Engineering firm for the manufacturing of their so called Capital goods - Held that - the Chartered Engineer has categorically mentioned the quantity of Angles Channels and Joists used in the manufacture of the said capital goods in detail. Therefore the contention of the Revenue that the appellant had not given any details of the consumption of the said materials cannot be accepted. Tribunal in the identical situation in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs Vs. M/s. SPS Steel & Power Limited 2017 (7) TMI 844 - CESTAT KOLKATA dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Cenvat Credit on Angles, Channels, and Joists as inputs.
2. Merit and limitation of Adjudication Order.
3. Production of Work Order or Agreement for manufacturing Capital Goods.
4. Certification by Chartered Engineer on usage of items.
5. Eligibility of the appellant to avail CENVAT credit.
6. Application of user test to determine eligibility of CENVAT credit.
7. Interpretation of Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the disallowance of Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 13,35,751.00 on Angles, Channels, and Joists used as inputs by the Assessee in the manufacture of Pig Iron. The Adjudicating authority imposed a penalty equal to the disallowed credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication Order citing merit and limitation issues, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

2. The Revenue contended that the Assessee failed to produce Work Order or Agreement with any Engineering firm for manufacturing the Capital Goods claimed. However, the Chartered Engineer's Certificate detailed the usage of items in various manufacturing processes, including EOT Crane, Gas Cleaning Plant, and Conveyor Gallery, supporting the Assessee's claim.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the eligibility of the Assessee to avail CENVAT credit based on the usage of iron and steel items in the fabrication of capital goods. Citing past decisions, the Tribunal emphasized the application of the user test to determine whether the items qualify as parts or components of capital goods, as per Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

4. Referring to various legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that structural steel items used in the fabrication of support structures for capital goods are eligible for Cenvat Credit. The user test was applied to establish that such items are integral to the functioning of the machinery, falling within the definition of Capital Goods under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.

5. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. The judgment highlighted the consistent application of legal principles and precedents to determine the eligibility of Cenvat Credit on iron and steel items used in manufacturing processes, emphasizing the importance of the user test in such assessments.