2017 (3) TMI 1201 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - MS items - denial on the ground that the items were utilised for fabrication of furnace/ pollution control plants, Conveyor belt system and supporting structures of capital goods - Held that - The issue whether M.S. items used for support structures of capital goods is eligible for credit has been settled in the judgement of India Cements Ltd. Vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2015 (3) TMI 661 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where the credit was allowed. Regarding the use of M.S. items for fabrication of capital goods, the goods fabricated are furnaces, pollution control equipment, conveyor systems etc. These items definitely fall within the definition of capital goods - the credit has been wrongly denied. Time limitation - Held that - the Appellants have furnished the amount of credit availed in ER-1 returns, they have also furnished the details of invoices for procurement of M.S. items - the Appellants have disclosed the details of the credit availed - the SCN issued invoking the extended period of allegation is unsustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Admissibility of credit on M.S. items used for fabrication of capital goods.
2. Allegation of irregular credit availed on M.S. items.
3. Validity of show cause notice invoking the extended period.
4. Applicability of judgments in similar cases.
5. Grounds of limitation for the appeal.

Admissibility of credit on M.S. items used for fabrication of capital goods:
The appeal was filed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing credit on M.S. items used for fabrication of capital goods. The Appellants, manufacturers of Silico Manganese, availed CENVAT credit on inputs and capital goods. The Department alleged irregular credit availed on M.S. items like angles, plates, beams, etc., used for fabrication of furnace, pollution control plants, and supporting structures. The original authority disallowed the credit, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Appellants argued that M.S. items were used for fabrication and support structures of capital goods, supported by Chartered Engineer certificates and photographs. The Tribunal found that M.S. items were used for support structures and fabrication of capital goods, falling within the definition of capital goods. Citing relevant judgments, the Tribunal held that credit on M.S. items was wrongly denied, and the appeal succeeded on this issue.

Allegation of irregular credit availed on M.S. items:
The Department alleged irregular credit availed on M.S. items without disclosing details of their use for fabrication of capital goods. The show cause notice invoking the extended period was challenged by the Appellants, arguing that they disclosed the details of M.S. items used for fabrication in their returns and invoices. The Tribunal found that the Appellants had indeed disclosed the details of credit availed, rendering the allegation unsupported by evidence. Consequently, the show cause notice invoking the extended period was deemed unsustainable.

Validity of show cause notice invoking the extended period:
The validity of the show cause notice invoking the extended period was contested by the Appellants. They argued that the notice was unsustainable as they had disclosed the details of credit availed in their returns and invoices. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the Appellants' disclosure of credit details in their returns and invoices invalidated the allegation of suppression of facts and rendered the extended period notice unsustainable.

Applicability of judgments in similar cases:
Both parties relied on various judgments to support their arguments. The Appellants cited judgments like Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills, India Cements, Dalmia Cements, among others, to establish the admissibility of credit on M.S. items used for fabrication of capital goods. The Tribunal found these judgments applicable to the facts of the case, supporting the Appellants' claim for credit on M.S. items.

Grounds of limitation for the appeal:
The Appellants also argued on the ground of limitation, contending that they had disclosed the credit availed in their returns and invoices, thus challenging the validity of the extended period notice. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellants, finding that the disclosure of credit details in their returns invalidated the allegation of suppression of facts and supported the challenge on the ground of limitation. Consequently, the appeal succeeded on both merits and the ground of limitation, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs.

← Previous Next →