2018 (6) TMI 721 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - inputs - iron and steel articles used by the appellants in their factory for fabrication of the capital goods, which in turn were being used by them in their factory itself - Held that - The Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Vandana Global, in any case, does not stand approved by the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s. Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs 2015 (5) TMI 663 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in the light of the latest decisions of various High Courts - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Dispute regarding eligibility of iron and steel articles as inputs for fabrication of capital goods.

Analysis:
The dispute in the present appeal revolves around the eligibility of various iron and steel articles used by the appellants in their factory for the fabrication of capital goods. The appellants argue that these items are essential inputs for their manufacturing process. Despite the lower authorities relying on a Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s. Vandana Global, the appellants contend that even according to the law declared in that case, the articles used for fabrication of capital goods should be considered eligible inputs. However, this specific aspect has not been thoroughly examined by the lower authorities, prompting the need for further review.

The Tribunal notes that the Larger Bench decision referenced by the lower authorities has not been approved by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s. Mundra Ports & Special Economic Zone Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs. Additionally, it is highlighted that this decision has not been approved by the Hon'ble High Court of Chattisgarh and Chennai High Court in other cases. In light of these developments, the Tribunal deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration based on the latest decisions of various High Courts. It is clarified that the appellant is not contesting the reversal of credit availed for certain items, and the Tribunal refrains from delving into the merits of the case, leaving it for the adjudicating authority to redecide.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasizes the need for a comprehensive review of the eligibility of iron and steel articles as inputs for the fabrication of capital goods, considering the latest decisions of different High Courts. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for fresh consideration underscores the importance of aligning with the evolving legal interpretations in this domain.