2020 (7) TMI 115 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - inputs/capital goods - immovable goods or not - goods permanently embedded to earth - M.S. angles channels plates defective plates M.S. Rounds/Rods Chequered coil Liquid Oxygen/Oxygen Gas Paints pipes tubes of steel spare for control valve Aluminium sheet Casting materials Coupling HR coil/plate joist cement etc. - HELD THAT - Reliance can be placed in the case of COMMR. OF C. EX. VISAKHAPATNAM-II VERSUS SAI SAHMITA STORAGES (P) LTD. 2011 (2) TMI 400 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT where it was held that credit is allowed on such items - appellant is entitled to CENVAT Credit. The second contention in the show cause notice is that the appellant could have taken only 50% of the CENVAT Credit during that year and another 50% has to be taken in the following year - HELD THAT - This issue is no longer relevant at this stage since several years have passed. It is never the law that the appellant was entitled to only 50% CENVAT Credit only that he can take 50% in one year and 50% in the following year. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on steel and cement items used for installation of machinery.
- Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on steel and cement used in installation of capital goods.
- Compliance with Rule 4 of CCR 2004 regarding CENVAT Credit.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of sponge iron and billets, availed CENVAT Credit on various items used in their factory for fabrication of support structures and machinery installation. The Revenue contended that these structures, being permanently embedded, are not excisable goods, thus not eligible for credit under Rule 2(k) or Rule 2(a)(A) of CCR 2004.

2. The Revenue also alleged that the appellant contravened Rule 4 of CCR 2004 by taking 100% credit on steel pipes and tubes, which should have been availed as 50% in one year and 50% in the subsequent year. Three show cause notices were issued to recover the disallowed credit and impose penalties.

3. The adjudicating authority allowed a portion of the CENVAT Credit but disallowed a significant amount, demanding its recovery along with interest and imposing penalties equal to the disallowed credit under Rule 15 of CCR 2004.

4. The appellant argued that recent judicial precedents have established the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on steel and cement used for installation of capital goods, citing cases from different High Courts and the Supreme Court.

5. After considering both sides' arguments and relevant precedents, the Tribunal held that the items in question were eligible for CENVAT Credit as established by recent High Court judgments, setting aside the demand for recovery.

6. Regarding the compliance issue with Rule 4 of CCR 2004, the Tribunal deemed it irrelevant at that stage due to the passage of several years, rendering the issue infructuous and not subject to further consideration.

7. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and providing for any consequential reliefs. The decision was pronounced in open court, granting relief to the appellant based on the established admissibility of CENVAT Credit on the disputed items.