Tribunal rulings on CENVAT Credit admissibility and utilization. Appellants successful on specific items and Consultancy Services.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals by the Appellants concerning the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on specific items like M.S. Bars, Angles, Channels, Plates, etc., Consultancy Services, and the utilization of CENVAT Credit balance of Education Cess. The Tribunal held that the demand was time-barred for specific items, upheld the right of the Appellant to claim full credit for Consultancy Services, and required separate payment for Secondary and Higher Education Cess without addressing interest on excess credit. The decisions were based on legal interpretations and analysis, resulting in the Appellants' favor.

---

---

Issues:
1. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on specific items like M.S. Bars, Angles, Channels, Plates, etc.
2. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on Consultancy Services availed.
3. Utilization of CENVAT Credit balance of Education Cess for payment of Secondary and Higher Education Cess.

Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on specific items:
The Appellant contested the denial of CENVAT Credit on items like M.S. Bars, Angles, Channels, Plates, etc., used in support structures for capital goods. The Appellant argued that the demand was time-barred as settled by the Larger Bench in a specific case. The Show Cause Notice issued beyond the normal limitation period of one year was deemed invalid. The Tribunal agreed, stating that conflicting decisions on these items were resolved by the Larger Bench in 2010. As the issue was disputable, no intent to evade duty was found, and the extended period under Section 11A Proviso couldn't be invoked.

Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on Consultancy Services:
Regarding Consultancy Services, the Appellant claimed CENVAT Credit for services availed, with a portion disallowed due to services provided to a second unit and trading activities. The Tribunal noted that before an amendment in 2012, there was no restriction on credit distribution. The Appellant was legally entitled to take the entire credit in one unit before the amendment. Citing a High Court case, the Tribunal upheld the Appellant's right to claim the credit, dismissing the Revenue's arguments.

Utilization of CENVAT Credit balance of Education Cess:
The Revenue argued against debiting the Education Cess balance for Secondary and Higher Education Cess payment, citing Rule provisions. The Tribunal found that Education Cess credit could only be used for specific purposes, requiring the Appellant to pay the Secondary and Higher Education Cess separately. The Appellant could take an equivalent credit in the Education Cess account. The Tribunal did not address the interest on the excess credit taken as it was not raised in the appeal. Ultimately, the appeals by the Appellants were allowed based on the detailed analysis and legal interpretations provided.

---

---