2016 (8) TMI 884 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant wins appeal on capital goods CENVAT Credit eligibility dispute.

The appellant availed capital goods CENVAT Credit on the structure of machineries, leading to a show-cause notice seeking reversal of the credit. The ... Invokation of extended period of limitation - Revarsal of Cenvat credit - Steel Structure material - bonafide belief that capital goods credit can be availed on structural - goods were received classifiable under Chapter 84 - no dispute regarding use of the said goods within the factory of manufacture - Held that:- the decisions cited by Revenue are in case where the inputs have been received classifiable under Chapter 72/73 of the Central Excise Tariff. The said chapters are not specifically included in the definition of capital goods. Moreover, it is found that the Commissioner (Appeals) has, in his order, recognized that this was an issue of interpretation. In such circumstances, when different Benches of Tribunal has different view and the matter was referred to the Larger Bench, it cannot be held that there was any mala fide involved in taking of credit. In such circumstances, extended period cannot be invoked. - Decided in favour of appellant Issues:1. Availment of capital goods CENVAT Credit on structure of machineries.2. Barred by limitation claim due to bona fide belief.3. Interpretation of definition of capital goods.4. Applicability of credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.5. Comparison with previous judicial decisions on similar matters.Analysis:Issue 1: Availment of capital goods CENVAT Credit on structure of machineriesThe appellant availed capital goods CENVAT Credit on the structure of machineries, leading to a show-cause notice seeking reversal of the credit. The notice contended that the credit of Steel Structure material cannot be availed under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.Issue 2: Barred by limitation claim due to bona fide beliefThe appellant argued that the notice was barred by limitation as they believed in good faith that capital goods credit could be availed on the structure. They cited the decision of a Larger Bench to support their claim that they were not aware of the inadmissibility of such credit until later.Issue 3: Interpretation of definition of capital goodsThe definition of capital goods at the material time included all goods falling under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant argued that since the goods received were classified under the relevant chapter, the credit should be admissible.Issue 4: Applicability of credit under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004The Tribunal considered the various arguments presented by both parties and analyzed the definition of capital goods in relation to the goods received by the appellant. It was noted that the chapters under which the goods were classified were not specifically excluded from the definition of capital goods, leading to a favorable decision for the appellant.Issue 5: Comparison with previous judicial decisions on similar mattersThe Tribunal compared the present case with previous decisions where credit for similar goods was denied. However, in this case, it was highlighted that the matter was one of interpretation, with different Tribunal Benches holding varying views. As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.