9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 144 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - inputs/capital goods - HR Plates/MS Plates/ Cheq. Plates etc. - denial on the ground that the said goods were used for supporting of structures and as such cannot be considered as either inputs or capital goods for availment of the Cenvat Credit - HELD THAT - The period in dispute is from 01.09.2011 to 31.08.2012. This Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the appellant itself on the similar set of facts for the period 01.09.2012 to 31.07.2013 in M/S JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE NAGPUR 2019 (2) TMI 6 - CESTAT MUMBAI has allowed the cenvat benefit on the disputed goods. The issue arising out of the present dispute is no more open for any debate there are no merits in the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in upholding rejection of CENVAT benefit of the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Denial of Cenvat benefit on disputed goods
Analysis: The judgment revolves around the denial of Cenvat benefit concerning Central Excise duty paid on goods like "HR Plates/MS Plates/ Cheq. Plates." The authorities rejected the Cenvat Credit taken by the appellant on these goods, asserting that they were used for supporting structures and thus not eligible as inputs or capital goods for Cenvat Credit. The appellant's advocate argued that the disputed goods were utilized within the factory to facilitate the manufacturing process of the final product, on which Central Excise duty was paid. He referenced a previous Tribunal order in the appellant's favor, emphasizing that the duty paid on the disputed goods should be available as Cenvat credit. On the contrary, the Revenue's representative reiterated the findings in the impugned order, leading to a detailed examination by the Tribunal. The period under dispute was from 01.09.2011 to 31.08.2012, during which the Tribunal had previously allowed Cenvat benefit on similar facts for the appellant from 01.09.2012 to 31.07.2013. The Tribunal's analysis of the case records and relevant legal precedents highlighted the nature of the disputed goods and their usage. Referring to the Superintendent's report and the Order-in-Original, it was noted that the goods in question, like HR Plates and MS Plates, were integral to the manufacturing process and could be considered either as capital goods or inputs. Citing a Larger Bench decision, the Tribunal concluded that steel items used as support structures for machinery could qualify as "accessories" of capital goods, thus making them eligible for Cenvat credit. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (Appeals) that upheld the rejection of Cenvat benefit for the appellant. In light of the settled position on the issue and the previous Tribunal order in the appellant's favor, the Tribunal found no merit in upholding the rejection of Cenvat benefit. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
|
