2017 (3) TMI 921 - AT - Central Excise

MODVAT credit - iron and steel products - Held that - the nature of subject items and their use as explained by the counsel for appellant the disallowance of credit is unjustified. The Larger Bench of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramala Sahakari Chini Mills Vs. CCE Meerut 2016 (2) TMI 902 - SUPREME COURT has held that the word include in the definition of inputs cannot be given a restrictive approach. The above items shown in the table would fall under the category of capital goods or inputs - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of modvat credit on 71 items by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Eligibility of credit on various items under the category of capital goods or inputs.
3. Justification for denying credit on specific items without proper reasoning.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of modvat credit on 71 items
The case involved the disallowance of modvat credit on 71 items by the Commissioner (Appeals) after a chequered history of litigation. The original authority disallowed a significant amount of credit, which was later partially allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Department appealed to the CESTAT, Bangalore, leading to a remand of the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals). The subsequent order disallowed credit on 71 items, prompting the appellants to approach the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Eligibility of credit on various items
The appellant's counsel argued that all the items listed, including tools, welding electrodes, grinding machines, steel castings, spares parts, hoses, resins, steel items, lubricants, and ingots, should be eligible for credit under the category of capital goods or inputs. Reference was made to a previous judgment regarding welding electrodes and MS plates used for repair and maintenance, emphasizing that these items should qualify for credit based on their usage.

Issue 3: Justification for denying credit without proper reasoning
The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to provide a specific reason for disallowing credit on the 71 items, despite acknowledging the eligibility of certain items like MS items and welding electrodes for credit. The Tribunal found the disallowance unjustified, especially considering the nature and usage of the items in question. Citing relevant case law and a Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal concluded that the items listed fell under the category of capital goods or inputs, warranting the allowance of credit. As a result, the impugned order disallowing credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of disallowance of modvat credit, eligibility of credit on various items, and the importance of providing proper reasoning for denying credit in such cases.