2016 (8) TMI 534 - AT - Central Excise

Refund claim - Cenvat credit wrongly paid under protest - capital goods received by them during the period in question were actually used for the manufacture of capital goods - non-submission of clinching evidence that the said items were used in the manufacture of capital goods - Held that - it is an admitted fact that the appellant have enhanced their installed capacity of production from 5000 M. T. to 15,000 M. T. which have been approved by the Central Excise Department. It is further admitted fact that the expansion in capacity took place during the period 2007 to 2009, to which the amount in dispute (input credit) in this appeal relates. It is further found that the Id. Commissioner (Appeals) in the appellant s own case have by a speaking and reasoned order accepted the claim of Cenvat credit. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to refund of ₹ 70,549/- being the amount debited by them under protest on 1/4/13, with interest as per Rules. - Decided in favour of assessee with consequential relief

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of Cenvat credit on items like M.S. angles, plates, sheets, shapes, sections, and channels.
2. Rejection of refund claim for the debited Cenvat credit.
3. Compliance with the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the Central Excise Rules.
4. Reliability of evidence and documentation provided by the appellant.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of Cenvat Credit:
The primary issue revolves around whether the appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit on items such as M.S. angles, plates, sheets, shapes, sections, and channels used during the period April 2007 to May 2012. The appellant contends that these items were used for manufacturing capital goods, thereby qualifying for Cenvat credit under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Revenue objected to this claim during an audit in June and July 2012, leading to the appellant debiting a portion of the credit under protest.

2. Rejection of Refund Claim:
The appellant filed a refund claim for Rs. 5,70,549/- debited under protest, arguing that the credit was wrongly debited as the items were used for manufacturing capital goods. The show cause notice issued on 01/07/13 proposed rejecting this refund claim, which was subsequently adjudicated and rejected by the original adjudicating officer. The officer observed that increasing installed capacity did not entitle the appellant to avail of Cenvat credit on every item used, as entitlement was governed by the relevant provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

3. Compliance with Cenvat Credit Rules and Central Excise Rules:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the refund claim, stating that the appellant failed to inform the Department about the manufacture of capital goods and did not provide conclusive evidence to support the claim. The appellant did not show production or clearance of capital goods for captive consumption under the required invoices or in their ER-I returns for the relevant period. The Commissioner (Appeals) also doubted the reliability of the Chartered Engineer's certificate, as the inspection occurred almost two years after the fabrication of the claimed capital goods.

4. Reliability of Evidence and Documentation:
The appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal based on assumptions and failed to consider the documentary evidence, including issue slips, RG-I copies, and the Chartered Engineer's certificate. The appellant relied on a previous favorable order by the Commissioner (Appeals) in a similar case, where Cenvat credit was allowed for similar items used in the expansion of installed capacity. The Tribunal found sufficient evidence supporting the appellant's claim, including stock registers, daily stock accounts, material transfer notes, and the Chartered Engineer's certificate.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellant is entitled to the Cenvat credit for the disputed items used in the fabrication of capital goods, as supported by substantial evidence. The Tribunal found the previous favorable order by the Commissioner (Appeals) in a similar case persuasive and held that the appellant is entitled to a refund of Rs. 5,70,549/- with interest. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits, and the impugned order was set aside.

Order:
The Tribunal pronounced the decision in the open court, allowing the appeal and granting the refund with interest as per the rules.