2018 (4) TMI 1020 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods - MS. Angles, HR Coils, HR Plates, CI Casting etc - Held that - the Chartered Engineer, who is expert in the field, has clearly stated that the items procured by appellant (in this appeal) were used for supporting structure of capital goods and also for pollution control equipment - The said Chartered Engineer s certificate being not controverted by any evidence - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellant is eligible for CENVAT Credit on Central Excise duty paid on specific items from May 2009 to April 2013.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against Order-in-Appeal No. NGP/EXCUS/OOO/APL/929/15-16 dated 10.02.2016. Despite the absence of the appellant, the appeal was taken up for disposal. The main issue revolved around the eligibility of the appellant to avail CENVAT Credit on Central Excise duty paid on items like MS Angles, HR Coils, HR Plates, CI Casting, etc., during the mentioned period. The Revenue contended that these items were not capital goods or inputs, leading to the incorrect availing of CENVAT Credit. Both the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority upheld the demands raised by the Revenue.

During the hearing, the learned D.R. referred to the definitions of 'inputs' and 'capital goods' for the relevant period and argued that the items in question did not fall under either category. He cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saraswati Sugar Mills to support his argument. The D.R. also mentioned the case of Vandana Global Ltd. to strengthen the Revenue's stance. Additionally, the D.R. highlighted the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of India Cement Ltd., stating that it was not applicable to the present case.

After considering the submissions and perusing the records, the tribunal noted that the appellant consistently claimed that the items were used as support structures in the factory premises and for fabrication in pollution control equipment. The appellant provided a Chartered Engineer's certificate supporting this claim, which was disregarded by the first appellate authority without proper reasoning. The tribunal emphasized that the Chartered Engineer's expert opinion remained uncontested and directly applied the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of India Cement Ltd.

In conclusion, the tribunal held that the impugned order was unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant. The decision was based on the expert opinion provided by the Chartered Engineer and the application of relevant legal precedents to the case at hand.