2016 (8) TMI 484 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - Irregular availment of Cenvat credit - steel items namely MS angles, HR plates, HR sheets, beams, MS joists etc. used for supporting structures to capital goods - Held that - it is crystal clear from the invoices that the supply of goods are parts of boilers. The circulars also have clarified that the items used for support structure of such boiler/capital goods are eligible for credit. There is no evidence adduced by the department to show that the boiler can function without the support structures. So also apart from a vague contention that Range Officer visited the premises and found that the MS items are used for laying foundation there is no such report placed as part of RUD. In India Cements Vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2015 (3) TMI 661 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , the Hon ble High Court of Madras held that credit is admissible on MS items used for fabrication of structure support which forms the integral part of machinery. Therefore, by following the same, the impugned order calls for no interference. - Decided against the Revenue

Summary

Issues:
- Irregular availment of credit on steel items used for fabrication of capital goods
- Interpretation of the definition of inputs under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004
- Admissibility of credit on structural components of boiler
- Validity of demand, interest, and penalty imposed

Issue 1: Irregular availment of credit on steel items used for fabrication of capital goods

The case involves a dispute where the Revenue challenged an order by the Commissioner(Appeals) setting aside the demand, interest, and penalty imposed on the respondent for irregularly availing credit on steel items used for fabrication of capital goods. The Revenue contended that the steel items were used as supporting structures and not for fabrication of essential parts of capital goods. They argued that the definition of inputs excludes such items used for construction purposes. The Range Officer's report and the supplier's classification of goods were presented as evidence. However, the respondent argued that the steel materials were indeed used for the support structure of capital goods, providing photographs and invoices to support their claim. The Circulars issued by the Board clarified that structural components essential to the boiler system are admissible for credit under CENVAT rules.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the definition of inputs under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004

The Revenue relied on the amended definition of inputs to argue that steel items used for construction purposes do not qualify for credit. They alleged that the respondent suppressed facts and invoked the extended period for raising the demand. However, the respondent countered by stating that the steel items were integral parts of the boiler system and essential for its functioning. The Circulars issued by the Board emphasized that structural components necessary for the boiler are eligible for credit, clarifying that items used for support structures of capital goods are admissible.

Issue 3: Admissibility of credit on structural components of boiler

The case delved into the admissibility of credit on structural components of the boiler. The Circulars issued by the Board provided guidance on the classification of structural components and their eligibility for credit under CENVAT rules. It was highlighted that components essential for the boiler system are considered parts of the boiler and are covered under the definition of inputs. The respondent demonstrated through invoices and contractual agreements that the steel items in question were indeed essential parts of the boiler and its support structure, making them eligible for credit.

Issue 4: Validity of demand, interest, and penalty imposed

The Revenue's appeal challenging the order setting aside the demand, interest, and penalty was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found in favor of the respondent, emphasizing that the steel items were used for fabrication of essential parts of machinery, aligning with a precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in a similar case. The lack of concrete evidence from the Revenue to prove their contentions, coupled with the clarity provided by the Circulars issued by the Board, led to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner(Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the admissibility of credit on structural components essential for the boiler system and rejecting the Revenue's argument regarding the irregular availment of credit on steel items used for fabrication of capital goods.