2007 (11) TMI 295 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Decision: Cenvat Credit Rules Upheld for Fabricating Capital Goods

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NAGPUR Versus SHREE VIRANGANA STEEL LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NAGPUR Versus SHREE VIRANGANA STEEL LTD. - 2009 (237) E.L.T. 562 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:- Availment of Cenvat credit on certain goods- Classification of goods as capital goods- Eligibility of Cenvat credit on welding electrodes- Penalty imposition on the respondentAnalysis:1. The appeal concerns the respondent availing Cenvat credit on goods like plain plate, angles, channel, HR sheet, chequered coil, and welding electrodes from April-2002 to November-2002. The revenue contended that these goods are not capital goods, thus not eligible for Cenvat credit. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand and imposed a penalty, which was challenged by the respondent through appeals.2. The revenue argued that the goods availed by the respondent are identifiable as structurals and do not qualify as capital goods under Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. They specifically highlighted that welding electrodes are ineligible for credit based on a Tribunal decision. On the other hand, the respondent emphasized that all inputs were used in manufacturing capital goods, citing Rule 2 and previous tribunal decisions in their favor.3. Upon reviewing the submissions and records, it was established that the goods in question were utilized in fabricating various capital goods crucial for the final product manufacturing process. The explanation 2 to Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 was cited to support the eligibility of credit on inputs used for manufacturing final products. The Tribunal found merit in the respondent's arguments, supported by previous judgments, and upheld the credit availed on items like plain angles, beams, channels, and plates.4. However, concerning the welding electrodes, it was noted that previous decisions by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal explicitly stated that welding electrodes do not qualify as inputs or capital goods. Therefore, the credit availed on welding electrodes was deemed ineligible, and the respondent was directed to reverse the amount of credit immediately.5. The Tribunal ruled on the penalty imposition, stating that no penalty was justified for availing credit on goods like plain angles, beams, channels, and plates, as they were deemed eligible. Additionally, due to the contested nature of the welding electrodes issue, no penalty was imposed on the respondent for availing credit on welding electrodes.6. In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the credit on welding electrodes while upholding the credit on other specified goods. The judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the eligibility of Cenvat credit on different goods, emphasizing the importance of adherence to the Cenvat Credit Rules and relevant precedents.