2011 (2) TMI 435 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal decision: Claim for credit on specific items denied as capital goods.

ROSAVAR STEELS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., COIMBATORE

The Tribunal upheld the duty and interest demand but set aside the penalty in a case concerning the claim of credit for MS Plates, Sheets, Channels, and ... Manufacture of CTD bars & rods - that the impugned items were used either for fabricating tubes used for drawing wires or for the purpose of keeping the hot drawn wires. The resultant products using the impugned items obviously did not fall under the specified chapters namely 82, 84, 85, 90, 68.02 and 6801.10. Undisputedly, the term capital goods have to construed strictly as per the definition and the impugned items falling under Chapter 72 having not been used for fabrication of machinery falling under the main part of the definition of capital goods cannot be treated as capital goods. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (A) in so far as the demand relating to duty and interest is concerned. Issues:Claim of credit for MS Plates, Sheets, Channels, and HR Sheets as capital goods.Analysis:The appellants, engaged in manufacturing CTD bars & rods, received MS Plates, Sheets, Channels, and HR Sheets and claimed credit treating them as capital goods. They argued that HR Sheets were used for flooring to place hot drawn wires, and other items were converted into tubes for drawing wires. A demand of Rs. 28,523/- for a specific period was confirmed, along with a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The Commissioner (A) upheld the duty demand but reduced the penalty to Rs. 3,000.The appellant's counsel contended that the items were clearly used as capital goods in the manufacture of final products. He argued that credit should not be denied, citing relevant legal decisions. On the other hand, the respondent submitted that the items did not fall under machinery chapters and were not components or spares of machinery. The respondent sought to uphold the Commissioner (A)'s order.The Tribunal observed that the disputed items fell under Chapter 72 and were used for fabricating tubes or keeping hot drawn wires, not for machinery falling under specific chapters defining capital goods. As per the strict definition of capital goods, items under Chapter 72 could not be treated as capital goods since they were not used for machinery fabrication falling under the main part of the capital goods definition. The Tribunal upheld the duty and interest demand but found no justification for sustaining the penalty of Rs. 3,000.In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of by upholding the demand for duty and interest while setting aside the penalty. The judgment emphasized the strict interpretation of capital goods and their specific usage in relation to machinery fabrication to qualify for credit under the law.