2014 (7) TMI 228 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of Cenvat credit - capital goods or inputs - Classification of goods - Classification of under Chapter 8419 8910 or under Chapter 72 - Held that - classification of the goods cannot be changed at the hands of the recipients of inputs or capital goods . Hence, goods does not appear to be classifiable under Chapter 72 of the Tariff - adjudicating authority should have examined this certificate along with utilisation of the goods before adjudicating this matter. Hence, we feel it is appropriate to remand this matter to the original authority for reconsideration of the use of the goods. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand back the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh after considering the use of the capital goods - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Denial of Cenvat credit on 'Base Frame', 'Beams', Pipes, etc., and availing credit on supplementary invoices.

Issue 1: Denial of Cenvat credit on 'Base Frame', 'Beams', Pipes, etc.:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing 'Thermal Baffle' and 'Inner Vessel' as a job worker, faced denial of Cenvat credit amounting to Rs. 82,33,119 on items supplied by M/s. Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. The appellant argued that these items were integral parts of the mentioned products, supported by invoices and a certificate from BHEL. The adjudicating authority classified the items under Chapter 72, denying the credit. The appellant cited the principle that recipients cannot change classification and referred to a Supreme Court decision. The Revenue representative claimed the items were not integral to the capital goods. The Tribunal found the classification could not be altered by recipients and noted BHEL's detailed certificate confirming the items' use in manufacturing 'Thermal Baffle' and 'Inner Vessel'. The matter was remanded for reconsideration, directing the adjudicating authority to assess the goods' utilization.

Issue 2: Availing credit on supplementary invoices:
The appellant also faced denial of Cenvat credit of Rs. 15,37,031 based on supplementary invoices by BHEL. The Commissioner rejected the credit, alleging discrepancies between the supplementary and earlier invoices. The appellant argued that the supplementary invoices were part of the entire contract and should be considered as such. The Tribunal directed the appellant to provide necessary evidence to the adjudicating authority for reevaluation, along with reconsidering the issue in light of BHEL's certificate. The appeal was allowed by remand for further examination.

In summary, the judgment addressed the denial of Cenvat credit on specific items and supplementary invoices, emphasizing the importance of considering the items' role in manufacturing processes and contract fulfillment. The Tribunal highlighted the principle that recipients cannot alter the classification of goods and stressed the need for a thorough review of evidence and certificates provided by the parties involved. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision, underscoring the significance of proper assessment and documentation in Cenvat credit disputes.