2015 (5) TMI 735 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant's CENVAT credit appeal allowed; detailed documentation crucial for repair & maintenance input eligibility.

Sri Chakra Cements Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise And Service Tax, Guntur

The appellant sought CENVAT credit on items for repair and maintenance, but was denied due to lack of documentation. The court found the issue debatable ... Eligibility of the appellant for CENVAT credit on MS Angles, Beams, Sheets, etc. - Held that:- Whether the items used for maintenance and repair credit can be given or not is highly debatable, requires detail consideration of the actual usage. At this stage I consider that appellant need not deposit any amount to hear the appeal. Accordingly the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and stay against recovery is granted during the pendency of appeal. - Stay granted. Issues involved: Eligibility of the appellant for CENVAT credit on MS Angles, Beams, Sheets, etc.Analysis:1. Eligibility for CENVAT credit: The appellant sought CENVAT credit on various items like MS Angles, Beams, Sheets, etc., used for repair and maintenance purposes. The counsel highlighted specific uses of these inputs, such as repair of raw mills, bag houses, kiln coolers, fabrication of chutes, and maintenance of various equipment. The appellant provided detailed information on the usage of these items, emphasizing their direct involvement in repair and maintenance activities. Despite the appellant's submission of usage details, both lower authorities denied the CENVAT credit due to a lack of necessary documents. The total amount in question was approximately Rs. 3,66,761 for the period from March 2012 to October 2012.2. Debatable issue: The question of whether items used for maintenance and repair are eligible for credit is considered highly debatable and requires a detailed examination of the actual usage. The presiding judge acknowledged the need for a thorough consideration of the matter, especially regarding the specific purposes for which the inputs were utilized. In light of this, the judge decided that the appellant should not be required to make any pre-deposit to pursue the appeal. Consequently, the requirement for a pre-deposit was waived, and a stay against recovery was granted during the appeal's pendency.This judgment highlights the importance of providing detailed usage information to support claims for CENVAT credit and the significance of a thorough examination of the actual utilization of inputs in repair and maintenance activities to determine eligibility for such credits.