2018 (3) TMI 835 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - TMT Bars, TOR steel and other bars, MS plates, MS angles, SS sheets, HR sheets, supporting structures, MS coils/plates, MS joists, HR coils, Floor/GI gratings, Galvanised step treads, Galvanised floor grills - Held that - an identical issue in respect of Thiru Arooran Sugars vs. CESTAT, Chennai was decided by Hon ble High Court of Madras 2017 (7) TMI 524 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , wherein Hon ble High Court held in favor of the appellants therein, holding that items are eligible as inputs/capital goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Eligibility to avail cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on various items under different sub-headings of chapter 72 and 73 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis:
The appeal was directed against the Order-in-Original, focusing on the eligibility to avail cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid on specific items. The items in question, including TMT Bars, TOR steel, MS plates, and others, were received in the factory premises and used for fabrication purposes. The Adjudicating authority raised demands, arguing that these items did not qualify as capital goods. The appellant's counsel referenced a similar case decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, which ruled in favor of the appellants, considering the items as eligible inputs/capital goods. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' findings and cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a different case.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions, the Tribunal found that the issue was conclusively addressed by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the referenced case. The Tribunal highlighted specific paras of the judgment where the High Court had analyzed and distinguished relevant decisions, including the one cited by the Departmental Representative. The Tribunal also mentioned a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, which overruled a previous decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable in light of these authoritative judicial pronouncements and proceeded to set it aside, allowing the appeal.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision was based on the authoritative judicial pronouncements from the Hon'ble High Courts of Madras and Gujarat, which supported the appellant's position regarding the eligibility of the items in question for cenvat credit. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the specific legal interpretations and distinctions made in the referenced judgments, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.