2018 (4) TMI 66 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - M.S.beams, M.S.Channels, M.S.Angles, M.S.Bars, M.S.Joist, H.R.Plate, H.R.Coil, Plate, Chequered Plate, Chequered Coil etc. - Welding Electrodes - Held that - the said items were used for making various machines /machines parts and accessories thereof such as Kiln, conveyor, pollution control equipments, Hooper - Revenue had not seriously contested the use of items in their appeals. Reliance placed in the case of M/s. Singhal Enterprises Private Limited Versus The Commissioner Customs & Central Excise, Raipur 2016 (9) TMI 682 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that applying the User Test to the facts in hand, we have no hesitation in holding that the structural items used in the fabrication of support structures would fall within the ambit of Capital Goods as contemplated under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Alleged contravention of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 by the respondents in availing and utilizing cenvat credit on specific items.
- Confirmation of demand and penalty by the Executing Authority.
- Appeal filed by the assessee and subsequent appeal by the Revenue before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the respondents engaged in the manufacture of sponge iron, facing allegations of contravention of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for availing and utilizing cenvat credit on various items classified under specific chapters. The Executing Authority confirmed a demand of &8377; 41,10,313/- on the assessee and imposed penalties under relevant provisions. The Commissioner (Appeals) later allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, leading to the Revenue appealing before the Tribunal.

2. The Revenue, in its appeal, contended that the assessee did not provide a declaration for the manufacture of capital goods and their clearance without duty payment for captive consumption under a specific notification. It was alleged that the assessee wrongly availed cenvat credit on disputed items and suppressed this fact, citing various decisions in support of their grounds.

3. During the proceedings, the counsel for the assessee relied on specific legal decisions to support their case, including judgments like Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd. vs. CCE & Cus and others. These references were crucial in presenting arguments in favor of the assessee's position.

4. Upon reviewing the impugned order, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the treatment of certain items by the Adjudicating Authority. While the Authority acknowledged the use of items in various machine parts and accessories, it denied cenvat credit on the basis of support structure creation. The Tribunal observed that the items were indeed utilized in the fabrication of machines and parts, a fact not seriously contested by the Revenue.

5. The Tribunal referred to the case of Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. C.Cus & C.Ex, Raipur, where the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, specifically addressing the admissibility of credit on structural steel items. Citing relevant legal precedents and the user test principle, the Tribunal concluded that the structural items used in fabrication for support structures fell within the ambit of Capital Goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, thus entitling the assessee to claim cenvat credit. This decision led to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal and the disposal of cross objections.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the legal issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision in the case.