CENVAT credit claim remanded for fresh adjudication after inconsistent pleas on use of MS flats and MS angles.

Inconsistent pleas on the use of MS flats and MS angles justified remand for de novo adjudication, because the assessee first claimed the goods were used in manufacturing material-handling equipment and later stated they were used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery. The alternative claim for CENVAT credit as inputs had not been properly examined, so fresh consideration was required. The merits of eligibility as capital goods were left open, and the original authority was directed to decide the credit claim afresh in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the matter should be remanded for de novo adjudication in view of the inconsistent pleas regarding the use of MS Flats and MS Angles and the alternative claim of CENVAT credit as inputs.

Analysis: The pleadings before the adjudicating authority were found to be at variance. The assessee had initially claimed that the goods were used for manufacturing material-handling equipment and, on that basis, sought credit as capital goods or their components. At the personal hearing stage, a different stand was taken that the goods were used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery. In view of this inconsistency, and since the alternative plea of credit as inputs had not been properly examined, the matter required fresh consideration. The merits of eligibility as capital goods were left open, and the alternative claim as inputs also required adjudication if the capital goods claim failed.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the original authority for de novo adjudication and fresh decision on the eligibility of CENVAT credit in accordance with law.

---