2018 (12) TMI 1478 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - inputs/capital goods - M.S. Angles, Joists, Channels, M.S. Plates/sheets, etc. used for fabrication of supporting structures for the equipments - time limitation - Held that - The appellants have proved that they have used these impugned items for support of capital goods which is essential for use of capital goods - Since the impugned items have been used for supporting structure of the machinery, therefore, the appellants are entitled to CENVAT credit on the same. Time Limitation - Held that - The entire demand is also barred by limitation because the period in dispute is June 2006 to November 2008 whereas the show-cause notice has been issued on 6.4.2011 - no mala fide can be attributed to the assessee and longer period of limitation would not be available to the department. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility of CENVAT credit on certain items used for fabrication of supporting structures for equipment falling under Chapter 72 of CETA, 1985 as inputs and capital goods.
- Barred by limitation due to conflicting decisions and subsequent rulings favoring the assessee.

Analysis:
1. Eligibility of CENVAT Credit:
The appeal challenged the rejection of CENVAT credit amounting to ?16,58,274/- by the Commissioner (A) on the grounds that the fabricated structures were not covered under the definition of capital goods. The appellant contended that the items were used for supporting components of capital goods and hence should be considered part of capital goods under Rule 2(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules. The appellant cited several decisions in support of their claim, establishing that similar issues were settled in favor of the assessee in various cases. The Tribunal examined the submissions and found that the impugned items were indeed used for supporting structures of machinery, making the appellant entitled to CENVAT credit. The Asst. Commissioner's observation that the items were utilized as supporting structures further supported this conclusion.

2. Limitation and Conflicting Decisions:
The appellant argued that the entire demand was time-barred due to conflicting decisions and subsequent rulings favoring the assessee. Citing the case of CCE vs. Hi-Tech Power & Steel Ltd., the appellant contended that in cases of conflicting Tribunal decisions, no mala fide could be attributed to the assessee. The Tribunal agreed with this argument, noting that during the relevant period of June 2006 to November 2008, there were conflicting decisions on the issue. Relying on the decision in the Hi-Tech Power and Steel Ltd. case, the Tribunal held that no longer period of limitation would be available to the department. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order. The appellant was granted consequential relief based on the findings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant on both the eligibility of CENVAT credit and the limitation aspect due to conflicting decisions and subsequent rulings. The appellant successfully demonstrated the usage of the disputed items for supporting capital goods, leading to the allowance of CENVAT credit. Moreover, the Tribunal ruled that the demand was time-barred, considering the evolving legal landscape during the relevant period. The decision was pronounced in favor of the appellant, providing relief and setting aside the Commissioner's order.