2018 (5) TMI 656 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods - HR Plates, Steel Plates - Held that - in an identical issue in respect of the very same assessee, CCE, C&ST, Visakhapatnam-I Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd 2017 (12) TMI 695 - CESTAT HYDERABAD , wherein the Bench held that on structural items credit availed was allowable - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Availment of CENVAT credit on HR Plates and Steel Plates as capital goods/parts of capital goods; Adjudication on recovery of CENVAT credit along with interest and penalties; Interpretation of law regarding the eligibility of items used in fabrication of tanks, plant, and machinery as capital goods; Discrepancy in Adjudicating Authority's decision compared to previous rulings in similar cases.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad involved two appeals against Order-in-Original No. 18/2010 (RS) dated 07.05.2010. One appeal was filed by the appellant/assessee (E/1794/2010), and the other by the Revenue (E/1866/2010), both directed against the same order. The issue at hand revolved around the availment of CENVAT credit on HR Plates and Steel Plates as capital goods or parts of capital goods during December 2007 to September 2008. The Revenue contended in the show cause notice that these items did not qualify as capital goods or inputs, leading to the recovery of the CENVAT credit availed along with interest, with no penalties imposed. The Adjudicating Authority's decision was challenged by the appellant/assessee and the Revenue through their respective appeals.

Upon review, it was found that the HR Plates and Steel Plates were utilized in fabricating large tanks, plant, and machinery for refineries. The Adjudicating Authority concluded that the CENVAT credit could not be allowed as these items were used in manufacturing capital goods. However, the Tribunal observed that the Adjudicating Authority failed to consider the law applicable during the relevant period. Notably, in a previous case involving the same assessee, the Tribunal had ruled in favor of allowing credit on structural items, citing precedents and final orders. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the impugned order challenged by the appellant/assessee should be set aside.

Given the allowance of the appeal in favor of the appellant, establishing their eligibility for CENVAT credit, the Revenue's appeal against the Order-in-Original was deemed unsustainable and dismissed due to the absence of penalties. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court upon the conclusion of the hearing.