2011 (1) TMI 249 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns procurement decision, orders fresh review on credit eligibility. Penalty imposition deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by the department challenging the procurement of items as capital goods by the respondents. The Commissioner (Appeals) ... Capital goods - respondents procured items like stainless steel guild, brass sheet, HTSS plates, aluminium coils, HT rolled plates, M.S.Channels & Angles, Door materials and brass rods and taken credit as capital goods - demand of duty and penalty- SDR submits that the impugned items cannot be considered as capital goods and credit will not be admissible in the light of the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE,[2010 -TMI - 76147 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)] - no justification for imposition of penalty, set aside - appeal allowed by way of remand Issues:1. Eligibility of credit on items procured by the respondents as capital goods.2. Whether the items in question can be considered as capital goods.3. Consideration of specific use of items by the original authority.4. Time-barred claim by the respondents.5. Imposition of penalty.Analysis:Issue 1: Eligibility of credit on items procured by the respondents as capital goodsThe department filed an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, challenging the procurement of items like stainless steel guild, brass sheet, HTSS plates, and others as capital goods by the respondents. A show cause notice was issued alleging ineligibility, leading to a demand of duty and penalty. The original authority confirmed the demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set it aside.Issue 2: Whether the items can be considered as capital goodsThe department argued that the impugned items did not qualify as capital goods based on a Tribunal decision. The original authority's focus on the dispute did not allow for a specific determination of each item's use. The Consultant for the respondents contended that the items fell under the definition of capital goods and inputs, emphasizing the inclusion of components, spares, and accessories.Issue 3: Consideration of specific use by the original authorityThe Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and decided to remand the matter to the original authority for a fresh review. The original authority was instructed to determine the eligibility of credit on different items by considering the specific use and claims of the respondents after granting a reasonable opportunity for hearing.Issue 4: Time-barred claimThe Consultant for the respondents raised the issue of a time-barred claim, suggesting a limitation on part of the claim. However, this issue was not specifically addressed in the final decision.Issue 5: Imposition of penaltyThe Tribunal found no justification for the imposition of a penalty in the circumstances of the case and set it aside. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, with the cross objection also being disposed of.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both sides, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for further consideration regarding the eligibility of credit on the items in question.