2017 (4) TMI 429 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal grants appeal in CENVAT credit case for cement company

M/s. Orient Cement Limited Versus CCE, C & ST, Hyderabad-I

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, a cement and clinker manufacturing company, in a case concerning the irregular availment of CENVAT credit ... CENVAT credit - welding electrodes used for fabrication and repair and maintenance of capital goods - Held that: - the appellant had explained that the MS items were used for repair and maintenance of plant and machinery. The Department has no case that they conducted an inspection in the premises of the factory after receiving this reply. There is no case for the Department, that appellant has diverted the MS items procured by them - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues Involved:- Irregular availment of CENVAT credit on MS items for fabrication of capital goods, repair, and maintenance.- Allegation of irregular credit on welding electrodes for repair and maintenance of capital goods.Analysis:The appeals involved in this case concern the irregular availment of CENVAT credit on MS items and welding electrodes by a company engaged in the manufacture of cement and clinker. The appellants were issued show cause notices spanning from 4/2003 to 6/2012, alleging improper credit on MS items used for fabrication, repair, and maintenance of capital goods, as well as on welding electrodes. The period in question for the present appeals is September 2012 to March 2013. The original authority confirmed the demand, interest, and penalties, which were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appeals before the Tribunal.During the proceedings, the appellant's consultant argued that previous show cause notices had raised similar grounds, questioning the eligibility of credit on MS items and welding electrodes. It was highlighted that in a previous order dated 16.01.2017, the Tribunal had ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the admissibility of credit on MS items used for fabrication and repair, as well as welding electrodes for maintenance. The appellant contended that the MS items were indeed used for repair and maintenance purposes, as clarified in their responses to the department's communications.On the other hand, the department's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, maintaining the stance against the appellant's eligibility for credit on MS items and welding electrodes. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides, analyzed the situation. It was noted that the appellant had provided explanations regarding the utilization of MS items for repair and maintenance activities, which the department did not counter with any inspection or evidence of diversion.The Tribunal relied on precedents, including judgments from the jurisdictional High Court and the Apex Court, to conclude that the appellants were indeed eligible for credit on MS items and welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance. Citing specific legal references, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals and granting consequential reliefs as applicable. The decision emphasized the admissibility of credit on MS items and welding electrodes, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellants.