2015 (10) TMI 1315 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal overturns denial of CENVAT Credit, remands case for fresh decision.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the Adjudicating authority for fresh decision. The denial of CENVAT ... Denial of CENVAT Credit - Credit on M.S. Angles, Channels, Plates etc - Items used for erection and commissioning of various Plants & Machinery - Held that:- contradiction in the submission of the appellant in so far as that the appellant by letter dt.30.06.2010 stated before the Commissioner (Appeals) that these items were used in various Plants & Machineries and also categorically mentioned the details of the Plants & Machineries in their letter. In my considered view, the appellant should be given an opportunity to place the details of use of these items with supporting documents before the Adjudicating authority. - impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating authority to decide afresh - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues: Denial of CENVAT Credit on M.S. Angles, Channels, Plates; Use of items for erection and commissioning vs. construction purposes; Contention on limitation periodIn this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, the issue revolved around the denial of CENVAT Credit on M.S. Angles, Channels, Plates, etc. The appellant argued that these items were used for erection and commissioning of Plants & Machineries, leading to the production of final products on which Excise duty was paid. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the items were also used for construction purposes like building factory sheds or laying foundations. The appellant inadvertently mentioned this fact in their grounds of appeal, leading to a contradiction in their submissions.The learned Advocate representing the appellant contested the demand on the limitation period. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and examining the records, found the contradiction in the appellant's submissions regarding the use of the items. The Tribunal decided to give the appellant an opportunity to provide details of the items' use with supporting documents before the Adjudicating authority. Consequently, the impugned orders denying the CENVAT Credit were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The Adjudicating authority was directed to decide the case on merit and the limitation issue after considering the appellant's submissions in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing the appellant with a chance to clarify the use of the items and present supporting evidence for their claim.