2021 (4) TMI 848 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - capital goods - MS plates, MS angles, MS channels etc. falling under Chapter 72 and Nickel screen/pugmills falling under Chapter 73 and chains falling under Chapter 73 - HELD THAT - It is found that for the period September 2015 to March, 2016, the cenvat credit on these disputed items were denied by the Department and this Tribunal in THE UGAR SUGAR WORKS LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM 2019 (5) TMI 654 - CESTAT BANGALORE has allowed the appeal of the appellant. The issue is squarely covered by various decisions relied upon by the appellant including the appellant s own case - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of CENVAT credit on goods falling under Chapter 72
- Applicability of capital goods definition under Rule 2(a) of CCR, 2004
- Consideration of judicial precedents and binding decisions
- Verification of usage of disputed items
- Admissibility of CENVAT credit for repair and maintenance of machinery
- Consideration of certificate from Chartered Engineer
- Findings of the Tribunal in previous cases
- Applicability of "user test" for determining capital goods

Analysis:
1. Denial of CENVAT credit on goods falling under Chapter 72:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing sugar and distillery products, faced denial of CENVAT credit amounting to ?12,80,094 on items like HR coil, MS Angles, MS channels, MS plates, and MS flats falling under Chapter 72. The original authority confirmed the denial, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) and subsequently to the present appeal.

2. Applicability of capital goods definition under Rule 2(a) of CCR, 2004:
The appellant argued that certain items like Nickel Screen, pugmill, and chains, although falling under different chapters, were essential components of capital goods like centrifugal machines and material handling equipment. They relied on legal provisions and decisions to support their claim for eligibility of CENVAT credit on these items.

3. Consideration of judicial precedents and binding decisions:
The appellant highlighted previous cases where similar items were involved, and the Tribunal had allowed the appeal by setting aside the Commissioner's order. They emphasized the importance of considering binding judicial precedents and relevant legal provisions in determining the admissibility of CENVAT credit.

4. Verification of usage of disputed items:
The appellant stressed the need for verifying the actual usage of the disputed items, especially in the context of repair, maintenance, and modification of machinery. They presented a certificate from a Chartered Engineer certifying the usage of these items for such purposes, which was allegedly not adequately considered by the authorities.

5. Admissibility of CENVAT credit for repair and maintenance of machinery:
The appellant argued that items like MS Plates, MS Angle, and ISMC falling under Chapter 72 were crucial for repair and maintenance of various machinery components falling under Chapter 84. They cited multiple decisions supporting the treatability of these items as eligible capital goods based on their usage in machinery repair and maintenance.

6. Consideration of certificate from Chartered Engineer:
The appellant contended that a certificate from a Chartered Engineer had been provided, confirming the usage of disputed items for repair, maintenance, and modification of machinery in the sugar factory. They emphasized the significance of this certification in establishing the legitimate use of the items in question.

7. Findings of the Tribunal in previous cases:
The Tribunal referred to a previous case where CENVAT credit on disputed items was allowed, emphasizing the admissibility of credit for goods used in the fabrication of support structures for capital goods. The application of the "user test" was crucial in determining whether certain items qualified as capital goods, leading to a favorable decision for the appellant.

8. Applicability of "user test" for determining capital goods:
The Tribunal applied the "user test" to ascertain whether the disputed items were integral components of capital goods, ultimately allowing the appeal based on the principles established in previous decisions and the appellant's arguments. The decision was in line with the interpretation of Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, supporting the appellant's entitlement to CENVAT credit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if any, based on a comprehensive analysis of legal provisions, judicial precedents, and the specific circumstances of the case.