2022 (1) TMI 1119 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - excisable goods or not - erection, installation and commissioning of various EPCC projects by way 20 contracts with various contractors - denial of credit holding that the contractors only installed plant fixed to the earth, which is not excisable goods - HELD THAT - This Tribunal in INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. S.T, PANCHKULA 2020 (1) TMI 373 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH has allowed the cenvat credit to the appellant holding that once any item received in the factory is capital goods in terms of Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, and is used in the factory, the manufacturer would be entitled to Cenvat Credit of excise duty paid in respect of the same. Referring the case, it is held in the present case that the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of cenvat credit on items used for EPCC projects
- Interpretation of capital goods eligibility for cenvat credit

Analysis:
1. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Items Used for EPCC Projects:
The appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking, appealed against the denial of cenvat credit on various items used for erection, installation, and commissioning of EPCC projects. The dispute arose as the officers found that the contractors had only installed the plant fixed to the earth, which was deemed non-excisable. The appellant contended that in a previous case, the Tribunal had allowed cenvat credit for similar items, thus challenging the impugned order. On the other hand, the respondent argued that as the contractors set up the plant under turnkey contracts, the raw materials procured could not be considered inputs for the appellant's fabrication process, hence justifying the denial of cenvat credit. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal analyzed the facts and arguments presented.

2. Interpretation of Capital Goods Eligibility for Cenvat Credit:
The Tribunal examined the definition of 'capital goods' under the Cenvat Credit Rules, emphasizing that the goods covered under Chapter 84, 85, and 90 of the Central Excise Tariff, or those specified in Rule 2(a), qualified as capital goods. It was noted that ownership of goods at the time of receipt and fixation to earth structure did not disqualify items from being classified as capital goods. The Tribunal highlighted that as long as the items were used in the factory for manufacturing final products, they were eligible for cenvat credit, irrespective of ownership or installation leading to a fixed structure. Citing a previous ruling in the appellant's favor, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to avail cenvat credit, setting aside the impugned order and granting relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment favored the appellant, allowing cenvat credit for the items used in EPCC projects and clarifying the eligibility criteria for capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The decision underscored the importance of actual usage in the manufacturing process over ownership or installation aspects when determining cenvat credit eligibility, providing a significant precedent for future cases involving similar issues.