2016 (6) TMI 1171 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal allows appeal for CENVAT credit on essential manufacturing items

M/s. Orient Cements Versus CC, CE&ST, Hyderabad-I

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the appeal regarding the admissibility of CENVAT credit on MS items used in manufacturing cement ... CENVAT credit - MS angles, MS plates, MS channels, MS beams, HR coils/sheets etc - Held that: - As per the definition of inputs, the goods used in the manufacture of capital goods is eligible for credit. It is seen from the records that subject items were used for fabrication of belt conveyors, chutes, ducts, chimneys etc. Department does not have a case that the subject items were diverted from the factory in any manner. Appellants have furnished in their returns as well as statements regarding the credit availed. To avoid breakdown and interception in the manufacturing activity, timely repair and maintenance of machinery is necessary - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Admissibility of CENVAT credit on MS items used in manufacturing cement and clinker.2. Interpretation of the definition of inputs for availing credit.3. Application of precedents in similar cases to determine credit eligibility.4. Comparison of repair and maintenance activities with manufacturing processes for credit eligibility.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: The appellants availed CENVAT credit on duty paid for MS items used in manufacturing cement and clinker. The dispute arose when a show-cause notice alleged wrongful credit availment, leading to confirmation of demand, interest, and a penalty by the original authority. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the appeal.Issue 2: The appellant's counsel argued that the MS items were integral in fabricating parts and components of capital goods essential for the cement plant's operation and final product manufacturing. They emphasized the necessity of these items for repair and maintenance to ensure continuous manufacturing activity. Precedents like CCE, Tiruchirapalli Vs. India Cements Ltd. and others were cited to support the argument.Issue 3: The Revenue contended that the MS items were used solely for repair and maintenance, not in the direct manufacturing of final products, thus disputing the credit eligibility. Reference was made to the definition of inputs requiring direct or indirect use in final product manufacture. The judgment in Sree Rayalseema Hi-Strength Hypo Ltd. was cited to support this position.Issue 4: The Tribunal analyzed the situation, noting that the MS items were indeed used in fabricating essential components like conveyors, chutes, and ducts for the cement plant without diversion from the factory. Emphasis was placed on the importance of timely repair and maintenance to avoid disruptions in manufacturing activities. The Tribunal also referenced the judgment in CCE&C, Visakhapatnam Vs. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. regarding credit eligibility for repair and maintenance materials.Conclusion: The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants, holding that the impugned order was unsustainable. Citing precedents and the interpretation of the definition of inputs, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential reliefs. The decision emphasized the importance of understanding the role of repair and maintenance activities in the context of credit eligibility for inputs used in manufacturing processes.