Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Cenvat credit was admissible on steel items and other disputed goods used for fabrication or manufacture of capital goods and their components within the factory.
Analysis: The disputed goods were claimed to have been used in the fabrication and manufacture of capital goods and their components installed in the factory. A Chartered Engineer's certificate describing such use had been produced, but its contents were not properly considered by the lower authority. The Tribunal applied the principle that the eligibility of credit on steel structural items depends on their actual use in relation to fabrication of capital goods and components, following the user test recognised by the Supreme Court in the context of similar M.S. items.
Conclusion: The disputed goods qualified for Cenvat credit and the denial of credit was unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the order denying Cenvat credit was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Where steel items are shown by credible evidence to have been used in fabrication or manufacture of capital goods or their components within the factory, Cenvat credit cannot be denied merely on the ground that they are structural items, and the user test governs eligibility.