2014 (7) TMI 487 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Requires Predeposit for Cenvat Credit Eligibility

The Tribunal found that the applicants used iron and steel items for the fabrication of capital goods, making them eligible for cenvat credit. However, ... Denial of CENVAT Credit - Items used in the fabrication of capital goods/parts/accessories/components and used within the factory - Lack of evidence - Held that:- applicant had taken a stand that these items are admissible for cenvat credit as these items were used in the fabrication of capital goods/parts/accessories/components and used within the factory. - Applicants have not proved that these items were actually consumed as raw material for fabrication of the capital goods. It is also observed that the applicants failed to produce proper records like issue slips, records showing details of various capital goods used for fabrication during the relevant period. It is an undisputed fact that these items were used in roofing structure as well as fabrication of capital goods. - Conditional stay granted. Issues:Denial of cenvat credit on iron and steel items, Admissibility of cenvat credit on items used for fabrication of capital goods, Failure to produce evidence for the usage of items, Legal position on the eligibility of items for cenvat credit, Requirement of predeposit for waiver of duty, Interest, and penalty.Analysis:The applications involved the denial of cenvat credit on iron and steel items by the adjudicating authority, leading to a total credit denial of Rs. 46,39,179/- along with interest and penalty for the period from April 2008 to March 2010. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication orders, prompting the applicants to challenge the decision. The applicants argued that the items were used in the fabrication of capital goods/parts/accessories/components within the factory, making them eligible for credit. They cited relevant tribunal decisions and submitted evidence, including photographs of the capital goods, to support their claim.The Revenue, on the other hand, contended that the appellants failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish the usage of items for fabrication of capital goods. They highlighted inconsistencies in the appellants' stand before the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) and emphasized the need for proper evidence as per legal precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in previous cases.Upon reviewing the arguments from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the applicants had indeed used the items in question for the fabrication of capital goods within the factory. However, the Tribunal noted that the applicants failed to provide conclusive proof of the quantity of items used in the fabrication process. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged the eligibility of the items for cenvat credit but raised concerns about the lack of concrete evidence regarding the actual consumption of items as raw material for fabrication.Consequently, the Tribunal directed the applicant to make a predeposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- within six weeks, with the waiver of the balance amount of duty, interest, and penalty contingent upon this deposit. The recovery of the waived amount was stayed pending the outcome of the appeals. This decision was made based on the applicants' failure to establish a prima facie case for the complete waiver of the duty amount.In conclusion, while the Tribunal recognized the eligibility of the items for cenvat credit, the lack of conclusive evidence regarding their actual consumption in the fabrication process led to the requirement of a predeposit for the waiver of duty, interest, and penalty.