2018 (7) TMI 601 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - It is the case of the appellant that it has been availing cenvat credit by filing monthly returns regularly which were also being regularly scrutinized by the Range Officers / Divisional Officers - Held that - It is clear that the appellant had availed 50% of Cenvat credit on certain items like Beam, MS Angles, MS Channels, Joint and MS Bars falling under Chapter 72 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, claiming to be capital goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of Cenvat credit on ineligible items as Capital Goods.
2. Recovery under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004.
3. Demand of appropriate interest under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules.
4. Imposition of penalty under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules.
5. Justification of invoking the extended period of limitation.
6. Applicability of recent decisions in similar cases.
7. Interpretation of items falling under Chapter 72 as capital goods.

Analysis:
1. The appellant availed Cenvat credit on items like Beam, MS Angle, MS Channel, Joint, and MS Bars falling under Chapter 72 for supporting machinery. The Adjudicating Authority issued a show cause notice for recovery of wrongly availed credit. The appellant contested this, arguing that the notice was issued after a significant delay and citing a recent High Court decision in a similar case.

2. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the recovery proposal in the show cause notice. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld this decision. The appellant challenged this before the forum, arguing against the invocation of the extended period of limitation and relying on the High Court decision for support.

3. The Ld.AR supported the lower authorities, stating that the appellant's notification in 2009 may not have consequences without supporting documents. The Ld.AR contested the applicability of the High Court decision, claiming it was for a different period.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the facts and previous judgments. It noted that the items in question were used for civil construction and support purposes, not directly connected to the functioning of capital goods. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court judgment in Saraswati Sugar Mills case to support this interpretation.

5. The appellant's counsel referenced the High Court decision in Thiru Arooran Sugars case, arguing that structurals used for supporting machinery should qualify as capital goods. The Tribunal compared the facts of the present case with the High Court decision and found them similar, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.

6. The Tribunal considered the High Court's interpretation of the 2009 Notification and the distinction made in the Saraswati Sugar Mills case. It emphasized the classification and description-based eligibility for Cenvat credit on components and spares of capital goods, supporting the appellant's claim.

7. Based on the factual matrix and the High Court's judgment, the Tribunal concluded that the High Court's ratio applied to the present case. Therefore, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, with consequential reliefs granted.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the legal arguments, interpretations of relevant laws, and the application of precedents to determine the outcome of the case.