2011 (3) TMI 1121 - AT - Central Excise

Court allows Cenvat credit for machinery repair materials, stresses usage importance

The court set aside the decision disallowing Cenvat credit for angles, channels, bars, and welding electrodes used in the fabrication and repair of sugar ... Cenvat credit - Whether the M.S. Plates, Angles, Channels, Bars, etc. and Welding Electrodes used by the appellants are eligible for Cenvat credit - Held that:- The appellants contention that the items in question had been mainly used for fabrication of various items of sugar mill machinery like Body 700 M2/h and its dorr water tanks, etc. have also not been discussed at all - If the appellants have claimed that the M.S. Channels, Rods, etc. had been used for fabrication of the Sugar Mill machinery, these items would be covered by the definition of inputs - But since this aspect has also not been considered either in the order-in-original or in the order-in-appeal - Therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication - Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Issues:Dispute over eligibility of items for Cenvat credit - whether angles, channels, bars, welding electrodes used by manufacturers are eligible as capital goods or inputs.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of certain items for Cenvat credit by the manufacturers of sugar, specifically angles, channels, bars, and welding electrodes. The appellants claimed that these items were used for fabrication and repair of sugar mill machinery, making them eligible for credit. However, the Asstt. Commissioner disallowed the credit, a decision upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal.The consultant for the appellants argued that the items in question were used for fabrication and maintenance of sugar mill machinery, falling under the definition of inputs as per Cenvat credit Rules. It was contended that the authorities did not consider the usage of these items for machinery fabrication and repair. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative defended the decision, stating that the appellants failed to provide evidence supporting their claim and did not contest the denial of credit on welding electrodes before the Commissioner (Appeals).After considering the submissions and perusing the records, the judge noted that the disputed items, if used for repair and maintenance, were eligible for credit based on precedents set by High Court judgments. However, the authorities had not adequately considered the usage of items for fabrication of machinery. Citing relevant case laws, the judge set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need to consider the appellants' claims regarding the fabrication and repair usage of the items for sugar mill machinery.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of properly assessing the usage of items in question for Cenvat credit eligibility, especially concerning fabrication and repair of machinery. The decision underscored the need for thorough consideration of all aspects before denying such credits, as demonstrated by the remand for a fresh adjudication in this case.