2023 (8) TMI 127 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - input/capital goods - SS Pipes, SS/CR Coils, MS Angles, Plastic Hose assembly, various types of Valves and Valve Automation system - disallowance of credit on the ground that the tank constructed and erected by the appellant is not moveable goods accordingly, in terms of Rule 3(1) of CCR - HELD THAT - In view of the submission pointed out by learned Counsel that despite various decisions on the identical issue and the subsequent view taken by the department, the Adjudicating Authority has not considered the judgments viz-a-viz facts of the present case. Therefore, Adjudicating Authority must reconsider the entire matter based on the judgments which were passed much after the impugned order passed by him. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the whole issue in the facts of the present case equitable with various judgments delivered subsequent to the passing of the impugned order. Matter remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for passing a fresh order - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involved in the present case is whether the appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit for various goods used in the fabrication and erection of a storage tank, considering them as capital goods and inputs.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Cenvat Credit Eligibility
The appellant, a provider of storage and warehousing services, used SS Pipes, SS/CR Coils, MS Angles, Plastic Hose assembly, Valves, and Valve Automation system for the construction of a storage tank. The Revenue disallowed the Cenvat credit on the grounds that the tank was not movable goods, thus the appellant was not entitled to the credit. The appellant argued that similar cases have been decided in their favor by the Tribunal and Commissioner (Appeals), citing relevant judgments. The Adjudicating Authority was criticized for not considering the appellant's submissions and explanations, leading to a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for reconsideration by the Adjudicating Authority in light of the relevant judgments.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision based on the observations made, emphasizing the need for considering relevant judgments in determining the appellant's eligibility for Cenvat credit. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to pass a denovo order within two months from the date of the Tribunal's order.