CENVAT credit on steel used for capital goods structures remains admissible; premature availment within the year attracts interest only.

Steel items such as MS bars and TMT bars used to fabricate supporting structures and parts for capital goods in the factory were treated as eligible inputs under the broad user test, because the record showed use in installation and functioning of manufacturing equipment rather than mere construction activity. CENVAT credit on those items was therefore admissible and denial was unjustified. Premature availment of otherwise admissible credit within the same financial year, where the assessee remained entitled to the balance credit shortly thereafter, was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a substantive irregularity. Credit was not denied on that basis, but interest for the period of irregular availment was sustainable and penalties were deleted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on MS bars, TMT bars and similar steel items used for making supporting structures and parts for capital goods in the factory. (ii) Whether credit taken in excess by availing the balance credit in the same financial year amounted to a substantive irregularity or only a procedural lapse attracting interest.

Issue (i): Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on MS bars, TMT bars and similar steel items used for making supporting structures and parts for capital goods in the factory.

Analysis: The items shown in the records were mainly TMT bars and MS bars, and the record did not establish use of TOR steel for construction activity. The materials were found to have been used for making supporting structures and components essential for installation and functioning of capital goods in the manufacturing process. The decision applied the user test and followed the line of authority that steel items used in fabrication of capital goods or supporting structures are eligible inputs, and that the definition of input is to be construed broadly rather than restrictively.

Conclusion: Credit was admissible and the denial was unjustified, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether credit taken in excess by availing the balance credit in the same financial year amounted to a substantive irregularity or only a procedural lapse attracting interest.

Analysis: The excess availment related to timing within the same financial year, with only a short gap, and the appellant remained entitled to the balance credit in the subsequent year. The tribunal treated the premature availment as a procedural lapse rather than a ground to deny credit altogether, while recognizing liability to interest for the period of irregular availment.

Conclusion: The excess availment did not justify denial of credit, but interest on the irregularly taken amount was sustainable, partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The disallowance of CENVAT credit on the steel items was set aside, the interest demand on the prematurely taken credit was sustained, and the penalties were deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Steel items used for fabrication of capital goods or their supporting structures in the manufacturing process are eligible for CENVAT credit, and premature availment of otherwise admissible credit within the same financial year is only a procedural irregularity attracting interest, not denial of credit.

---