2018 (1) TMI 295 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - Department was of the view that the appellants are not entitled to cenvat credit as the goods, falling under Chapter 72, were not inputs and that the appellant unit did not have melting facility or processing such scrap - Held that - there is no dispute as to the fact that the scrap of alternator and scrap of engines as indicated in the documents by the seller would in itself be an evidence, that the seller is not able to use the same for manufacturing purpose in his factory premises - the capability of the appellant for repairing, refurbishing these alternators and engines is not doubted, only failure to explain the same is being considered on the presumptive ground they may not have undertaken the activity which would enable them to use the said alternator and engines in the DG sets manufactured and cleared by the appellants. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Entitlement to Cenvat credit on scrap alternators and engines purchased from sister concern
- Denial of Cenvat credit by the department
- Adjudication of recovery of incorrectly availed credit
- Appeal before First Appellate Authority
- Findings of the First Appellate Authority
- Misconstrued factual position by the First Appellate Authority
- Statement recorded by the authorities regarding the use of scrap alternators and engines
- Evidence supporting the utilization of scrap in manufacturing DG sets
- Sustainability of the impugned order

Entitlement to Cenvat Credit:
The issue revolved around the appellant availing credit on scrap alternators and engines purchased from their sister concern, with the department disputing the eligibility of Cenvat credit. The department argued that the goods were not eligible inputs as they were not melted by the appellant unit. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand for recovery of the credit along with penalties. The appellant contended that they repaired the engines, used them in DG sets, and paid appropriate Central Excise duty, challenging the denial based on presumptions.

First Appellate Authority's Findings:
The First Appellate Authority upheld the denial of Cenvat credit, stating that if the scrap engines could be repaired, the sister concern would have done so and not labeled them as scrap. The authority found no documentary evidence to prove the repair of the scrap engines, supporting the denial of credit. The authority emphasized the non-usability of the goods labeled as scrap by the sister unit, indicating a lack of capability for reuse in manufacturing.

Misconstrued Factual Position:
The appellate tribunal noted a misconception by the First Appellate Authority, highlighting the statement of the appellant's authorized signatory, who affirmed the intention to use the scrap alternators and engines in manufacturing after repair. The tribunal emphasized that the Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence to dispel this statement recorded under the Central Excise Act, considering it as sufficient proof of the appellant's utilization of the scrap in manufacturing DG sets.

Sustainability of the Impugned Order:
Based on the factual position and the statement recorded, the tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal. The tribunal concluded that the appellant had adequately demonstrated the utilization of the scrap in manufacturing, and nothing more could be expected from them in the circumstances of the case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments, findings, and the ultimate decision regarding the entitlement to Cenvat credit on scrap alternators and engines, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings.