2018 (3) TMI 748 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - capital goods - HR coils, MS beams, MS channels and MS angles - Held that - the contentions of the appellant had not been taken into consideration before arriving at the conclusion of liability. This requires remedy. Matter is remanded to the original authority to consider the submissions of the appellant that the storage tank/machinery and their supports are modular and hence not covered by the decision of the Larger Bench in re Vandana Global 2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB) and that, with the full disclosure in the returns, the show cause notice was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed under law. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against disallowance of CENVAT credit on 'HR coils', 'MS beams', 'MS channels', and 'MS angles' as capital goods.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to the disallowance of CENVAT credit on certain items as capital goods. The original authority disallowed the credit, stating that the definition of 'capital goods' under rule 2(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 did not include raw materials or inputs used for manufacturing storage tanks or its supporting structures. The appellant argued that the exclusion did not exist during the relevant period. The first appellate authority held that the amendment excluding supporting structures was retrospectively applicable based on a previous Tribunal decision. The appellant contended that this decision was no longer valid due to a Supreme Court judgment and cited a Tribunal decision applicable to the dispute. They argued that the materials were used for fabricating a storage tank and supporting structures integral to other machinery, making them modular and not covered by the exclusion in the rules.

The appellant also highlighted that their filed returns clearly indicated the nature and purpose of the inputs used, which should have been considered by the authorities to determine the limitation on recovery. The Authorized Representative reiterated the impugned order. Upon careful review, it was found that the contentions raised by the appellant were not considered before concluding liability, necessitating a remedy. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original authority to reconsider the appellant's submissions regarding the modular nature of the storage tank/machinery and their supports, in light of the exclusion rule and the limitation period for issuing the show cause notice.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing an opportunity for the original authority to reevaluate the contentions raised by the appellant regarding the CENVAT credit disallowance and the limitation period for recovery, based on the specific circumstances and arguments presented during the appeal process.