2019 (1) TMI 1029 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - capital goods or inputs - Chemical Compounds, Paints and Thinner, Fan Ring, Fan Guard, Coloured Steel, Collecting Electrode, Fabricated Structure, Beams, Steel Wire Rope, Chain part thereof, Painted Grating, Aluminium Coil, Rolled Aluminium, Metal Bellows, Tool Bit and Rotating Arrangement Geared Unit - Held that - It is brought out by the decision of the Larger Bench in Commissioner of Cus. & C.Ex., Meerut-I Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd. 2000 (5) TMI 64 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI that if the Credit is not eligible as capital goods and if the same qualifies as inputs, the Credit ought to be allowed. The impugned items in the present appeal are Chemical Compounds, Paints and Thinner, Fan Ring, Fan Guard, Coloured Steel, Collecting Electrode, Fabricated Structure, Beams, Steel Wire Rope, Chain part thereof, Painted Grating, Aluminium Coil, Rolled Aluminium, Metal Bellows, Tool Bit and Rotating Arrangement Geared Unit. These items fall within the definition of inputs - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of CENVAT Credit on items categorized as "capital goods" by the appellant.
2. Disallowance of Credit by the Department leading to penalties.
3. Interpretation of the definition of "inputs" under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
4. Applicability of previous tribunal decisions on similar issues.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing MS Billets and TMT Bars, availed CENVAT Credit under "capital goods" category on various items. The Department issued a Show Cause Notice disallowing the Credit on grounds of ineligibility, leading to penalties imposed by the Original Authority. The appellant contended that the items should be considered under "inputs" category, relying on precedents like Manglam Cement Ltd. case.

2. The appellant argued that the items were used in their factory, making them eligible as "inputs" under CENVAT Credit Rules. The Department, represented by the Ld. AR, contended that the appellant failed to establish the usage of the items in their factory. The Tribunal heard both sides and proceeded to analyze the definition of "inputs" during the relevant period.

3. The Tribunal referred to the definition of "inputs" under Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, emphasizing the inclusion of goods used in the factory by the manufacturer of the final product. Citing decisions like Commissioner of Cus. & C.Ex., Meerut-I Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd., the Tribunal highlighted that if items do not qualify as capital goods but meet the criteria for inputs, Credit should be allowed. The appellant's items were argued to fall within the definition of "inputs."

4. The Tribunal considered previous tribunal decisions where Credit on similar items was allowed, indicating inconsistency in the application of the law by the authorities below. Relying on judgments like M/s. Vandana Global Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the disallowance of Credit was unjustified. Consequently, the impugned Order disallowing the Credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs as per law.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)