2016 (1) TMI 1059 - AT - Central Excise

Railway tracks in factory premises qualify for CENVAT Credit. Appellants allowed change from inputs to capital goods.

M/s. Tata Steel Ltd., M/s. SAIL, Durgapur Steel Plant And Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur Versus CCE, Jamshedpur, CCE, Bolpur And M/s. SAIL, Durgapur Steel Plant

The Tribunal held that railway tracks and related materials used within the factory premises for transportation of goods qualify for CENVAT Credit as they ... Cenvat Credit - eligible inputs - rails and other track materials, namely, sleepers, paints and crossings etc. - Revenue contended that the goods in question do not merit inclusion in the category of ‘inputs’ as the same do not go into the mainstream of the process of manufacture either directly or indirectly, nor included in the list of goods mentioned in the definition of Rule 2(g) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002. Held that:- Since the department has accepted the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on rails and railway track materials involving the same assesse i.e. M/s SAIL, for subsequent period under the CCR,2004 and identical issue is also involved in M/s Tata Steel's case, therefore, adopting the principle of certainty & consistency in tax matters, in our view, the Appellants are eligible to credit on rails and railway track materials. Consequently, the discussion on the applicability of the said judgment to the present CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 and other contentions raised in these Appeals would become more of academic in nature rather than resolving the dispute, hence not resorted to. - Credit allowed - Decided in favor of assessee. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether CENVAT Credit is admissible on rails and railway track materials used within the factory premises for transportation of raw materials, semi-finished, and finished goods, as well as in overhead cranes.Whether these items qualify as 'inputs' or 'capital goods' under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002/2004.Whether the appellants can change their claim from inputs to capital goods or vice versa at the appellate stage.The applicability of the principle of consistency in tax matters, particularly when the department has accepted similar claims in subsequent periods.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on Rails and Railway Track MaterialsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002/2004, define 'inputs' and 'capital goods' and stipulate conditions for credit eligibility. The judgment refers to the Supreme Court's decision in Jayaswal Neco Ltd., which held that railway tracks integral to the manufacturing process are eligible for credit.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the use of railway tracks within the factory premises is integral to the manufacturing process, as they facilitate the movement of raw materials and finished products, thereby meeting the criteria for CENVAT Credit.Key Evidence and Findings: Photographs and descriptions of the manufacturing process demonstrated the essential role of the railway tracks in the production chain, akin to the facts in Jayaswal Neco Ltd.Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the principles from the Supreme Court's ruling, determining that the railway tracks are integrally connected to the manufacturing process and thus eligible for CENVAT Credit.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the tracks do not qualify as capital goods under the specific tariff headings. The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing the functional role of the tracks in manufacturing.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the railway tracks and related materials qualify for CENVAT Credit as they are essential to the manufacturing process.Issue 2: Change of Claim from Inputs to Capital GoodsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal referred to its own decisions in Krishna Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. and Bhilai Steel Plant, which allow changes in the claim of credit eligibility at the appellate stage.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found no legal bar against changing the claim from inputs to capital goods, as long as the substantive eligibility is established.Conclusions: The appellants were permitted to change their claim, reinforcing the principle that credit eligibility should be based on substantive criteria rather than procedural formalities.Issue 3: Consistency in Tax MattersRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The principle of consistency in tax matters is supported by Supreme Court decisions, such as Birla Corporation Ltd. and Amar Bitumen, which prevent the Revenue from taking contradictory positions in similar cases.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the department's acceptance of similar claims in subsequent periods should guide the current decision, ensuring consistency and certainty in tax administration.Conclusions: The Tribunal applied the principle of consistency, granting CENVAT Credit to the appellants based on the department's prior acceptance of similar claims.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSVerbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'The use of railway tracks is related to the actual production of goods and without the use of the said railway track, commercial production would be inexpedient.'Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces that materials integral to the manufacturing process qualify for CENVAT Credit, regardless of their classification as inputs or capital goods, and underscores the importance of consistency in tax rulings.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals by Tata Steel and SAIL, and rejected the Revenue's appeals, granting consequential relief to the appellants.The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of functional integration in determining CENVAT Credit eligibility and affirms the need for consistency in tax administration.