2018 (6) TMI 1411 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - capital goods - Balance 50% credit taken in 2011-12 on MS items - Held that - As far as the amount of ₹ 4,73,808/- is concerned this is the second instalment of 50% of the capital goods credit of the amount already allowed by this Bench in the case of M/S MARUTI ISPAT & ENERGY PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER C. CE & ST, GUNTUR 2016 (12) TMI 659 - CESTAT HYDERABAD - credit allowed. Fresh credits on MS items and other items used for fabrication/ repairs - Held that - In the case of M/S MARUTI ISPAT & ENERGY PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER C. CE & ST, GUNTUR 2016 (12) TMI 659 - CESTAT HYDERABAD , credit was allowed on MS Channels, MS Beams, MS Joists, HR Coils, HR Plates, Woven wire mesh etc., which are used in fabrication of capital goods - credit allowed. CENVAT credit - input services - services rendered by the architects - Held that - It is clearly excluded in view of the definition of input service under Section 2(l) after 01.04.2011 - credit not allowed. The amount of interest and penalty get modified accordingly. Appeal allowed in part.

Issues:
1. Recovery of irregular CENVAT credit and input service credit.
2. Adjudication of show cause notices by Additional Commissioner and Commissioner of Central Excise.
3. Appeal against denovo order of the Commissioner.
4. Disputed amounts regarding CENVAT credit on different items.
5. Eligibility of CENVAT credit on MS items for fabrication.
6. Availment of fresh credits on MS items and other items.
7. Dispute over input service tax credit on services rendered by architect.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellants, manufacturers of Sponge Iron, who were found to have taken a significant amount of modvat CENVAT credit without paying any duty during the period they were doing job work for another company. The Additional Commissioner issued show cause notices proposing the recovery of irregular CENVAT credit and input service credit. The matter was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner and later by the Commissioner of Central Excise, leading to an appeal before the CESTAT.

2. The CESTAT, in its final order, remanded the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for further evidence presentation by the appellants. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Central Excise passed a denovo order allowing certain CENVAT credit but confirming demands on capital goods and services, along with interest and penalties. The appeal was against this denovo order of the Commissioner.

3. The disputed amounts included CENVAT credit on MS items for fabrication, fresh credits on MS items, and input service tax credit. The CESTAT upheld the eligibility of CENVAT credit on the impugned items used for fabrication, citing relevant legal precedents and court judgments.

4. The CESTAT also addressed the arguments regarding the fresh credits on MS items, with the appellant seeking allowance based on previous decisions. However, the Commissioner (AR) opposed this, stating that the items in question were not covered under the CENVAT Credit Rules.

5. Regarding the input service tax credit on services rendered by the architect, the appellant argued for the credit, while the Commissioner (AR) contended that the services were not eligible based on the definition of input service under Section 2(l) of the relevant period. The CESTAT agreed with the Commissioner and disallowed the input service tax credit on the amount in dispute.

6. Ultimately, the CESTAT modified the Order-in-Original, allowing certain CENVAT credits on capital goods but disallowing the input service tax credit. The decision resulted in a reduction of penalty and interest elements proportionately, leading to the partial allowance of the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both sides, and the final decision rendered by the CESTAT in the case.

← Previous Next →