Cenvat credit on steel items upheld where evidence showed use in fabrication, with limitation restricted for earlier period.

Cenvat credit was admissible on steel items where unrebutted usage evidence showed they were used in fabrication of capital goods, as parts of capital goods, or as inputs in manufacture; the claim failed only for iron and steel bars. The extended period of limitation was held unavailable for the period prior to 30.04.2010, so the demand survived only for the later period. The stated ratio is that credit cannot be denied on a general objection when factual use is established by evidence, and limitation must be tested against the period for which the demand is legally sustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on the steel items used for fabrication of capital goods or as inputs in manufacture, and (ii) whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the period prior to 30.04.2010.

Issue (i): Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on the steel items used for fabrication of capital goods or as inputs in manufacture.

Analysis: The usage certificate showed that, except for iron and steel bars, the remaining items were used either in fabrication of capital goods, as part of capital goods, or as inputs in manufacture. No contrary evidence was produced by the Revenue to displace that factual material. The objection based on the cited High Court decision did not apply because the present dispute turned on the factual use of the items.

Conclusion: Cenvat credit was allowed for all the disputed items except iron and steel bars, and the claim failed only in respect of iron and steel bars.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for the period prior to 30.04.2010.

Analysis: The demand notice was issued on 24.02.2012 for the period 2007-08 to 2011-12. In view of the prior Tribunal ruling relied upon in the order, the extended period was held unavailable for the period before 30.04.2010. The surviving demand related only to the later period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not invokable for the period prior to 30.04.2010.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part, with credit granted on most items and denial sustained only for iron and steel bars for the relevant post-30.04.2010 period.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the factual use of goods as capital goods components or inputs is established by unrebutted evidence, Cenvat credit cannot be denied on a general objection, and limitation must be tested with reference to the period for which the demand is legally sustainable.

---