2024 (1) TMI 931 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - cement and TMT bars used in foundation work as well as building construction - period prior to July 2009 - invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the cement and TMT bars were used for construction of building as well as foundation for erection and installation of machinery. Cement and TMT bars used for construction of building - HELD THAT - The appellant have relied upon various judgments, however, those judgments are related to the cenvat credit to the service provider and not to the manufacturer, therefore, these judgments are not directly applicable in support of credit on cement and TMT bars used in construction of factory building. Cenvat credit to the manufacturer in respect of cement and TMT bars for making foundation for erection, installation of the machinery - HELD THAT - There are judgments in favour of the assessee. However neither the show cause notice nor adjudication order has given bifurcation of the material used separately for making foundation and construction of building. The matter must go back to the Adjudicating Authority for ascertaining the amount of cenvat for the goods used in foundation and construction of building respectively and only thereafter, the final decision can be taken - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment addresses the issue of whether the appellant is entitled to cenvat credit on cement and TMT bars used in foundation work and building construction prior to July 2009, and whether the extended period of limitation can be invoked.

Analysis:
The appellant's counsel argued that since the cenvat credit was availed before the amendment in Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 on 07.07.2009, the credit should be admissible. They cited various judgments in support of their argument. However, the Revenue contended that the goods were used in construction, which was not allowed under the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal found that while judgments supported cenvat credit for making foundation for machinery erection, there was no clear bifurcation of materials used for foundation and building construction. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for further assessment.

Extended Period of Limitation:
The appellant argued that the extended period of limitation should not apply as they had disclosed the cenvat credit in their returns, indicating no suppression of facts. They relied on relevant judgments to support their position. The Tribunal found merit in this argument and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal for remand to the Adjudicating Authority.

Conclusion:
The judgment concluded by setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case to the Adjudicating Authority for a detailed assessment of the cenvat credit for goods used in foundation and building construction. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper bifurcation before making a final decision based on the cited judgments. All issues were kept open for further consideration.