2018 (7) TMI 310 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - inputs - M.S.Angle, M.S.Channel, M.S.Beam, M.S.Joist etc. - Held that - On the identical situation, the Tribunal in the appellant s own case M/s. OCL India Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax 2018 (1) TMI 155 - CESTAT KOLKATA has allowed the appeal of the assessee - credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing cross objection, Availing cenvat credit on steel items, Support structures for capital goods, Applicability of CENVAT credit on iron and steel structures, Payment of interest on reversed CENVAT credit.

Delay in filing cross objection:
The respondent filed a Misc. Application for condoning the delay in filing the cross objection due to a delay of 7 days beyond the last filing date. The Ld. Representative provided reasons for the delay, and the Tribunal decided to condone the delay based on the explanations given.

Availing cenvat credit on steel items:
The respondent, engaged in manufacturing refractory products, was alleged to have wrongly availed cenvat credit on steel items treated as inputs. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the amount, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the credit was wrongly availed, which was reiterated by the Ld. AR for the Revenue.

Support structures for capital goods:
The respondent argued that the steel items were used in manufacturing support structures for various capital goods, which was verified by the Jurisdictional Range Officer. The Tribunal examined the issue and referred to a previous decision in a similar case involving the appellant, where the credit was allowed on similar structural materials used in the fabrication of support structures for capital goods.

Applicability of CENVAT credit on iron and steel structures:
The Tribunal referred to various legal decisions and judgments to determine whether CENVAT credit could be allowed on iron and steel structures used as support structures for capital goods. The Tribunal considered the "user test" and held that such structural items used in the fabrication of support structures would fall within the ambit of 'Capital Goods' as per Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, thereby entitling the assessee to the credit.

Payment of interest on reversed CENVAT credit:
Regarding the reversed CENVAT credit on cement used in civil foundation, the appellant argued that interest should not be payable as the credit was never utilized before reversal. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal held that interest was not payable if the wrongly availed credit was reversed before utilization, thereby ruling in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order, allowing the CENVAT credit on iron and steel structures and ruling against the payment of interest on reversed CENVAT credit.