9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1322 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Imposition of penalty - Held that - Respondent has filed Chartered Engineers certificate report of usage of the items in question for fabrication of certain capital goods which were mentioned in para 2 herein above. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) after examining the design drawing therein and photographs and Chartered Engineer report that all the items used by the respondent in fabrication of the capital goods. In the case of Saraswati Sugar 2011 (8) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and India Cement Ltd. 2014 (7) TMI 881 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein the Hon ble High Court of Madras has held that if items in question are used for fabrication of capital goods at site they are entitled for cenvat credit. Admittedly in this case the respondent has produced Chartered Engineer certificate along with report design drawing and photograph which clearly shows that items in question were used for fabrication of capital goods. Therefore I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Eligibility of Cenvat credit on MS ingots, MS TMT bars, runner riser procured by respondent. 2. Validity of Chartered Engineer's certificate as evidence of usage of items for fabrication of capital goods. 3. Interpretation of Tribunal's decision in Vandana Global Ltd. case regarding eligibility for Cenvat credit. Analysis: Issue 1: Eligibility of Cenvat credit The respondent availed Cenvat credit on MS ingots, MS TMT bars, runner riser as inputs/capital goods. The Revenue contended that these items were not eligible as inputs or capital goods since they were used for supporting structures. The adjudicating authority denied the credit, imposing duty, interest, and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the credit after examining a Chartered Engineer's certificate detailing the usage of the items in the fabrication of capital goods like reheating furnace, weigh bridge, etc. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, citing precedents where items used in fabricating capital goods were deemed eligible for Cenvat credit. Issue 2: Validity of Chartered Engineer's certificate The Revenue argued that the Chartered Engineer's report was insufficient evidence of the items' usage post-fabrication. However, the Tribunal found that the Chartered Engineer's certificate, along with design drawings and photographs, sufficiently demonstrated the usage of the items in question for fabricating capital goods. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal held that if items were used for fabricating capital goods at the site, they qualified for Cenvat credit. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the validity of the Chartered Engineer's certificate as evidence of usage for fabrication. Issue 3: Interpretation of Tribunal's decision in Vandana Global Ltd. case The Revenue contended that the Chartered Engineer could not provide a concrete report on the items' usage post-fabrication. However, the Tribunal noted that the Chartered Engineer's report, along with supporting documents, clearly established the items' utilization in fabricating capital goods. Relying on precedents like Saraswati Sugar and India Cement Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that if items were used in fabricating capital goods, they were eligible for Cenvat credit. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decision to allow Cenvat credit to the respondent based on the evidence presented. This detailed analysis highlights the key issues addressed in the judgment, including the eligibility of Cenvat credit, the validity of evidence provided, and the interpretation of relevant legal precedents.
|
