2018 (9) TMI 1479 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods - HD Steel, Steel Cogs/TIS Cogs, TMT Rod & Bar, MS Plate, MS Pipes, MS nut, Telescopic Steel Props, Steel Sleepers, etc. - Held that - The impugned goods have been duly used in or in relation to the manufacture/production of HD Steel, Steel Cogs/TIS Cogs, TMT Rod & Bar, MS Plate, MS Pipes, MS nut, Telescopic Steel Props, Steel Sleepers, etc., without which it would not be possible to undertake mining activities. Since the disputed goods are not falling under the excluded category of goods specified in the definition of inputs, Cenvat credit can be extended to those goods as per the broad definition of inputs contained in Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - credit allowed. CENVAT Credit - duty paying documents - credit denied on the documents issued by appellant s other unit, namely, M/s. SECL, Central Store, CWS-CS Korba on the ground that the said unit was not registered with Central Excise Department - Held that - It is an admitted fact on record that the receipt of goods in the appellant s unit and the duty paid character of those goods have not been disputed either in the Original or in the Appellate Order. Thus, denial of Cenvat credit for mere technical lapse of non-obtaining the registration certificate at the time of issuance of invoice, cannot be a ground to deny the Cenvat credit - credit allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of Cenvat credit on disputed goods for the period March, 2011.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in mining and selling coal, availed Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods for discharging Central Excise duty on finished products. The dispute arose concerning the availment of Cenvat credit on disputed goods. The show cause notice alleged improper use of certain items as civil structures and for support of capital goods, leading to the denial of Cenvat credit amounting to &8377;1,06,90,179. The Commissioner confirmed the disallowance along with interest and imposed a penalty, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appeal before the Tribunal.

During the hearing, the appellant's consultant detailed the usage of disputed goods in the factory premises, demonstrating their essential role in the mining activities. The appellant cited relevant judgments to support their case. In contrast, the respondent reiterated the findings of the impugned order, arguing that the disputed goods did not qualify as inputs or capital goods, thus not eligible for Cenvat credit.

The Tribunal observed that the disputed goods were integral to the manufacturing process of various final products and were not excluded from the definition of inputs. It was noted that the denial of Cenvat credit based on technicalities, such as the registration status of the supplier, was unjustified. Emphasizing the legislative intent behind Cenvat credit rules to prevent cascading effects, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the credit since the disputed goods had undergone duty payment and were used in production.

Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and ruling in favor of the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, relevant legal principles, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Tribunal.