9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 155 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - various steel structural materials such as M.S. Plates, Angles, Channels etc. which were used in the construction of capital goods such as Dry Heater, Calcyne, Storage Tanks, silos etc. - Held that - The issue is covered by the earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Raipur 2016 (9) TMI 682 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that applying the User Test to the facts in hand, we have no hesitation in holding that the structural items used in the fabrication of support structures would fall within the ambit of Capital Goods as contemplated under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, hence will be entitled to the Cenvat Credit - credit allowed. Liability of interest - Held that - appellant is not liable to pay interest since the CENVAT Credit availed by them, wrongly reversed before utilisation of the same. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved:
1. Dispute over CENVAT Credit on iron steel materials and cement used in manufacturing support structures. 2. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on various steel structural materials. 3. Justification for payment of interest on reversed CENVAT Credit. Analysis: Issue 1: Dispute over CENVAT Credit on iron steel materials and cement used in manufacturing support structures: The appellant availed CENVAT Credit on steel materials and cement used in manufacturing Dry Heater/Calcine Storage Tanks/silos, claiming they were used in the manufacture of Supporting Structures. The Department denied the CENVAT Credit, arguing that the goods were not valued under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The appellant admitted in the adjudication proceedings that CENVAT Credit was not admissible for the cement used in the foundation and reversed the amount. However, the Department demanded interest on the reversed CENVAT Credit. The Tribunal analyzed previous decisions and held that CENVAT Credit was allowable on iron and steel structures used in support structures and construction of capital goods, including cement. The reversal of CENVAT Credit was deemed unjustified and set aside. Issue 2: Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on various steel structural materials: The Tribunal referred to earlier decisions and the user test to determine the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on steel structural materials like M.S. Plates, Angles, Channels, etc., used in the fabrication of support structures for capital goods. The Tribunal held that the structural items used in the fabrication of support structures fell within the definition of Capital Goods under the CENVAT Credit Rules. The CENVAT Credit on such iron and steel structures was deemed allowable, following precedents and the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court. The Tribunal also highlighted that the cement used in conjunction with the structural items for construction of capital goods and supporting structures would be considered as inputs eligible for credit. Issue 3: Justification for payment of interest on reversed CENVAT Credit: Regarding the interest demanded on the reversed CENVAT Credit for the cement used in the Civil foundation, the appellant argued that since the availed credit was never utilized before reversal, there was no justification for payment of interest. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, including those of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, and held that interest was not payable when CENVAT Credit wrongly availed had been reversed before utilization. Relying on these decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not liable to pay interest on the reversed CENVAT Credit. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed both appeals by setting aside the impugned orders, emphasizing the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on iron and steel structures, as well as the cement used in the construction of support structures and capital goods.
|
