2014 (1) TMI 1651 - AT - Central Excise

Appellants granted Cenvat credit for maintenance materials, aligning with capital goods definition.

The appellant's Cenvat credit for duty paid on HR Sheets and Steel Plates used for maintenance of storage tanks was initially denied, but the Tribunal ... CENVAT Credit - Credit on Steel Plates, Sheets etc. used for repair and maintenance - Held that:- It is quite clear that when HR Steel Sheets, Plates etc. are used for repair and maintenance within the factory they would be eligible for credit. In this case there is an added factor to support the eligibility for the credit in the sense that the same have been used for repair and maintenance of storage tank which is specifically covered under the definition of 'capital goods'. - Decision in the case of Cement Corporation of India v. CCE [2014 (3) TMI 346 - CESTAT BANGALORE] - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Denial of Cenvat credit on duty paid for HR Sheets and Steel Plates used in maintenance of storage tanks.2. Interpretation of the definition of 'capital goods' in relation to Steel Plates and Sheets used for repair and maintenance.Analysis:1. The appellant's Cenvat credit for duty paid on HR Sheets and Steel Plates used for maintenance of storage tanks was denied, and the credit utilized was demanded with interest and penalty imposed. The appellant argued that a previous Tribunal decision established that HR Plates/Sheets used for repair and maintenance are eligible for Cenvat credit as inputs. The definition of 'capital goods' includes storage tanks, supporting the admissibility of Steel Plates and Sheets used for maintenance after conversion into parts of storage tanks as inputs.2. The learned Additional Commissioner argued that lower authorities relied on a circular by the Board, referencing a Supreme Court decision and a Tribunal's Larger Bench decision, stating that Steel Plates, Sheets, etc. used for repair and maintenance are not eligible for CENVAT credit. The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and found the previous Tribunal decision cited by the appellant applicable to the current case. The Tribunal highlighted the distinction between using steel items for repairs/maintenance versus fabricating/manufacturing capital goods, emphasizing that items used for replacement of worn-out parts of capital goods become part of the capital goods, making them eligible for credit.3. The Tribunal's analysis of the previous decision clarified that HR Steel Sheets, Plates, etc. used for repair and maintenance within the factory are eligible for credit, especially when used for repair and maintenance of storage tanks defined as 'capital goods.' The issue was deemed settled based on precedent decisions, leading to the allowance of both appeals with consequential relief for the appellants. The final decision was made without postponing it to a later stage by granting a stay.