2018 (5) TMI 1508 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input - Angles, Channels, Beams, Plates etc. which were alleged to have been used in the fabrication of factory shed, building, laying foundation or making structure for support of capital goods - Held that - the credit availed on inputs, namely, angles, channels, beams etc. are admissible provided the same are used in the fabrication of Rotary Kiln as claimed by the appellant before this forum - From the records, it is not clear whether these items have been used in the fabrication of Rotary Kiln as claimed by the appellant. Assessee fairly submits that they could produce a Chartered Engineer s Certificate and other evidencea which had not been produced earlier justifying the use of these items in its factory premises in fabrication of Rotary Kiln. The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to verify the claim of the appellant on the basis of evidences that are on record and that will be produced by the appellant during the do novo proceeding - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. RAJ-EXCUS-000-APP-168-2017-18 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Rajkot.
- Availment of CENVAT Credit on certain items for fabrication purposes.
- Dispute regarding the usage of items in the fabrication of a factory shed or a Rotary Kiln.
- Requirement of technical certificate from a Chartered Engineer for validation of usage.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case was filed against an order confirming a demand for the recovery of CENVAT Credit availed on specific items used in fabrication activities. The appellant claimed that the items were utilized in the fabrication of a Rotary Kiln in their factory, not in a factory shed as alleged. The appellant referred to a previous judgment by the Tribunal to support their claim. The Revenue argued that no technical certificate from a Chartered Engineer was provided to justify the usage of the items in question.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, the Tribunal acknowledged the settled principle established in a previous judgment regarding the admissibility of credit on items used in the fabrication of a Rotary Kiln. However, it was noted that there was a lack of clarity regarding whether the items were actually used in the fabrication process as claimed by the appellant. The appellant agreed to produce a Chartered Engineer's Certificate and additional evidence to support their claim, which had not been submitted earlier. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for further verification based on the evidence available and that which would be presented by the appellant during the fresh proceedings. The appeal was allowed for remand, emphasizing the need for substantiating evidence to validate the usage of the items in question.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both sides, the legal principles applied, and the ultimate decision to remand the case for further verification based on additional evidence.