CENVAT credit on steel items denied after Larger Bench ruling, while penalties were dropped because the issue remained debatable.

CENVAT credit on beams, MS plates, MS joists and similar steel items was held inadmissible as capital goods because the Larger Bench ruling had settled the controversy against the assessee, so the demand and interest were restored in favour of the Revenue. Penalties were nevertheless set aside because the issue had remained genuinely debatable in view of conflicting decisions and the reference to the Larger Bench, making penal consequence unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether credit was admissible on beams, MS plates, MS joists and similar steel items as capital goods. (ii) Whether penalty was sustainable when the dispute had been the subject of conflicting decisions and a Larger Bench reference.

Issue (i): Whether credit was admissible on beams, MS plates, MS joists and similar steel items as capital goods.

Analysis: The issue had been settled against the assessee by the Larger Bench decision relied upon by the Revenue. The earlier view on which the appellate authority had proceeded was no longer acceptable in view of the larger bench ruling.

Conclusion: Credit was held to be inadmissible and the orders setting aside the demand and interest were reversed, in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty was sustainable when the dispute had been the subject of conflicting decisions and a Larger Bench reference.

Analysis: The existence of conflicting decisions leading to reference before the Larger Bench showed that the matter was debatable and that penal consequences were not justified.

Conclusion: Penalties were set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue succeeded on the substantive credit and demand issues, but the penalties were deleted, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a Larger Bench has settled the controversy against the assessee, credit cannot be sustained on the disputed items; however, penalty is unwarranted where the issue was genuinely debatable because of conflicting decisions.

---