2013 (1) TMI 555 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal on Cenvat credit denial for specific items partly allowed; extended limitation period not applicable

ITC LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE. SALEM

The appeal challenging the denial of Cenvat credit on specific items like Non-Alloy Steel Bars, H.R.S.S. Plates, and S.S. Plates was partly allowed as ... Denial of Cenvat credit - Capital goods as per Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Non-Alloy Steel Bars - H.R.S.S. Plates - S.S. Plates - Steel doors Corrugated Roof Sheets – Used in their factory workshop for repair of machinery – Expended period of limitation – Penalty u/s 11AC Held that:- Following the decision in case of HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. (2006 (5) TMI 44 - HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN) that the appellants are entitled to avail Cenvat credit on Non-Alloy Steel Bars, H.R.S.S. Plates and S.S. Plates, which are being used for repair of machinery in their workshop. As these items were not used for constructing support structures, therefore CENVAT credit allowed in respect of these items. In favour of assessee As regards Steel Doors and Corrugated Roof Sheets, the appellants failed to produce any supporting documents to prove that these items are being used in the workshop for repair of their machinery. As these items were not used for constructing support structures therefore, CENVAT credit on these items is denied. In favour of revenue As this is an issue of interpretation as to whether the assessee are entitled to credit or not, therefore, extended period of limitation is not invokable. Therefore, demand is restricted to the normal period of limitation. As this is an issue of interpretation, no penalties were also warranted, therefore, penalty u/s 11AC is waived Issues:Challenge to denial of Cenvat credit on specific items like Non-Alloy Steel Bars, H.R.S.S. Plates, S.S. Plates, Steel Doors, and Corrugated Roof Sheets under the definition of 'capital goods' as per Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.Analysis:The appellants contested the denial of Cenvat credit on various items by lower authorities, arguing that these items were used either in the factory workshop for machinery repair or as building material in the factory, making them eligible for credit. The counsel relied on a High Court decision to support their claim.The Departmental Representative opposed the appellants' contention, citing other cases to argue that the items were more akin to supporting structures and not eligible for Cenvat credit. The adjudicating authority had upheld the denial of credit based on this argument.Upon review, the Tribunal found that certain items like Non-Alloy Steel Bars, H.R.S.S. Plates, and S.S. Plates were indeed used for machinery repair in the factory workshop, as confirmed by the Range Officer's report. The Tribunal noted that the Department did not challenge this fact, leading to the conclusion that these items were entitled to Cenvat credit based on the High Court precedent cited. However, for items like Steel Doors and Corrugated Roof Sheets, the appellants failed to provide evidence of their usage for machinery repair, resulting in the denial of Cenvat credit for these items.The Tribunal emphasized that the issue at hand was an interpretation of whether the appellants were entitled to credit, thereby ruling that the extended period of limitation did not apply. Consequently, the demand was restricted to the normal limitation period. Given the interpretational nature of the issue, no penalties were imposed, and the penalty under Section 11AC was waived. The appellants were directed to deposit the denied Cenvat credit amount along with interest within 30 days of the order communication.In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellants for certain items used for machinery repair, while credit was denied for other items due to lack of evidence supporting their usage for eligible purposes.Judgment:The appeal challenging the denial of Cenvat credit on specific items was partly allowed based on the usage of the items for machinery repair, with credit denied for items lacking supporting documentation. The decision was made in consideration of the High Court precedent and the nature of the items in question.