2018 (9) TMI 1649 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - certain capital goods used for the construction of various turnkey projects - Held that - This Bench of the Tribunal, in the assessee s own case M/S. TAMILNADU NEWSPRINT & PAPERS LTD. VERSUS CCE, TRICHY 2014 (7) TMI 1281 - CESTAT CHENNAI for different periods has set aside and allowed the appeal by way of remand to the file of adjudicating authority, wherein an identical issue was involved - By following the same, it is deemed proper to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the file of the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availing CENVAT Credit on capital goods used for turnkey projects.
2. Interpretation of excisable goods under Section 37B of CBEC Circular No. 58/1/2002.
3. Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing the assessee's appeals.
4. Request for remand based on previous Tribunal orders.
5. Setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the adjudicating authority.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the issue of the assessee availing CENVAT Credit on capital goods used for turnkey projects. The Revenue contended that the assessee had taken credit on specific capital goods which were not excisable goods as per Section 37B of CBEC Circular No. 58/1/2002. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand raised in the Show Cause Notices. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals of the assessee, setting aside the Orders-in-Original. The Revenue appealed against this decision.

2. The interpretation of what constitutes excisable goods under Section 37B of CBEC Circular No. 58/1/2002 was a crucial aspect of the case. The Revenue argued that certain capital goods used by the assessee for turnkey projects did not fall under the definition of excisable goods, leading to the disallowance of CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal considered this issue in light of previous orders and decided to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration.

3. The appeal also involved challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) order that allowed the appeals of the assessee with consequential reliefs. The Revenue was aggrieved by this decision and brought the matter before the Tribunal for review. The Tribunal reviewed the contentions of both parties and decided to remit the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision in accordance with the law and previous Tribunal orders.

4. The assessee's representative requested a remand based on previous Tribunal orders in similar cases where identical issues were involved. The Tribunal acknowledged the relevance of these previous orders and decided to follow the same approach by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal, comprising Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical), and Shri P Dinesha, Member (Judicial), set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in line with previous Tribunal orders and after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The decision was made following a thorough review of the contentions and relevant legal provisions.