9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 815 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - input/capital goods - M.S. Angles, Bars, Sheets, Beams etc. - scope of SCN - Held that - The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the issue entirely in a different manner inasmuch as the appellant had categorically denied that the disputed goods were not used for laying foundation or making structural support of the capital goods - the matter should go back to the original adjudicating authority for proper fact finding regarding nature of use of the disputed goods by the appellant in its factory premises - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
CENVAT credit eligibility on disputed goods under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Analysis: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing M.S. Angles, Bars, Sheets, Beams, availed CENVAT Credit on these goods during the disputed period, considering them as 'inputs'. The department objected, stating the goods did not conform to the definition of 'input' in Rule 2 (kl) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The adjudication order denied CENVAT Credit, imposed interest, and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, citing the goods were used for laying foundation and supporting structures, relying on previous Tribunal decisions. The appellant argued the goods were used for repairs and maintenance, and M.S. Beams were used for electricity generation for captive use. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the Commissioner's approach, noting the appellant's denial of using the goods for laying foundation or structural support. The matter was remanded to the original authority for proper fact-finding on the nature of the goods' use. The appellant was directed to provide relevant documents supporting their claim of using the goods for repair, maintenance, and electricity generation for captive use. The appeal was allowed for a fresh fact-finding process by the original authority. This detailed analysis highlights the dispute over CENVAT credit eligibility on disputed goods, the conflicting interpretations of their use, and the decision to remand the case for further investigation and clarification on the actual use of the goods by the appellant.
|
