Denial of Cenvat Credit for Steel Items Upheld, Appellant Directed to Deposit Partial Amount

The court confirmed the denial of Cenvat Credit to the appellant for steel items used as supporting structures, imposing a duty amount of Rs. 3,75,984/- with an equal penalty. The demand was raised within the extended limitation period. However, it was clarified that if steel items were used for the fabrication of capital goods, they would be eligible for Cenvat Credit. A portion of the demand was found within the limitation period, and the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 1,30,000/- within four weeks for goods used in capital goods fabrication. The remaining balance pre-deposit was stayed pending appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat Credit for steel items used as supporting structures.
2. Applicability of Cenvat Credit for steel items used for fabrication of capital goods.
3. Challenge to the order based on limitation period.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the denial of Cenvat Credit to the appellant for various items used as supporting structures, resulting in a confirmed duty amount of Rs. 3,75,984/- along with an equal penalty. The demand was raised for the period 01.04.2009 to 31.07.2010 through a Show Cause Notice issued on 19.04.2011, invoking the longer period of limitation.

2. Referring to the decision of the Larger Bench of Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, it was established that steel items used as supporting structures are not eligible for Cenvat Credit. However, the judgment clarified that if the steel items are utilized for the fabrication of capital goods, then they would qualify for Cenvat Credit.

3. The appellant's representative contested the impugned order on the basis that some items were indeed used for the fabrication of plant and machinery, entitling the appellant to avail Cenvat Credit. Additionally, a challenge was raised regarding the limitation period for raising the demand.

4. Upon hearing both parties, the presiding judge found that a portion of the demand fell within the limitation period. Considering that the goods were used for the fabrication of capital goods, the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 1,30,000/- within four weeks and report compliance by a specified date. The pre-deposit of the remaining balance was stayed pending the appeal process.

5. The stay application was disposed of in the manner outlined above, with the pronouncement made in open court.

---