Cenvat credit on supporting structures and procedural lapses cannot defeat substantive entitlement; disputed claim remanded for document verification.

Cenvat credit on plates, tanks and other supporting structures used in sugar and molasses manufacture was treated as admissible, as higher court decisions supported eligibility and the items were not excluded merely because they functioned as supporting structures. Non-compliance with the intimation requirement under Rule 57(T) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 was held to be only procedural and insufficient to deny substantive credit where entitlement otherwise existed. The disputed amount was remanded for fresh verification because supporting documents were not produced, and penalty was set aside in light of the partial relief and remand.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Cenvat credit was admissible on plates, tanks and other supporting structures used in the factory for manufacture of sugar and molasses; (ii) whether credit could be denied for non-compliance with the intimation requirement under Rule 57(T) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944; (iii) whether the amount of Rs. 1,59,900/- was liable to be disallowed for want of proper documents and consequentially remanded; and (iv) whether penalty could survive in view of the partial allowance and remand.

Issue (i): whether Cenvat credit was admissible on plates, tanks and other supporting structures used in the factory for manufacture of sugar and molasses;

Analysis: The disputed items were treated as eligible cenvatable goods by higher court decisions. The denial based on their use as supporting structures was not accepted.

Conclusion: Credit on plates, tanks and other supporting structures was held admissible, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether credit could be denied for non-compliance with the intimation requirement under Rule 57(T) of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944;

Analysis: The requirement was treated as procedural in nature. A procedural lapse was held insufficient to deny the substantive credit benefit where the entitlement otherwise existed.

Conclusion: Credit was not to be denied merely for the procedural violation, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): whether the amount of Rs. 1,59,900/- was liable to be disallowed for want of proper documents and consequentially remanded;

Analysis: For the disputed amount, proper supporting documents were not produced. The matter therefore required verification by the lower authorities after the appellant was directed to produce the documents in support of the claim.

Conclusion: The disallowance for Rs. 1,59,900/- was set aside to the extent of remand for fresh consideration, with directions to produce documents.

Issue (iv): whether penalty could survive in view of the partial allowance and remand;

Analysis: Once the substantive dispute was partly decided in favour of the assessee and the remaining matter was remanded, imposition of penalty was found unwarranted.

Conclusion: Penalty was set aside, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the principal Cenvat credit controversy, obtained relief against penalty, and the only remaining part was sent back for verification of documents.

Ratio Decidendi: Cenvat credit cannot be denied on a merely procedural lapse where the underlying entitlement is otherwise established, and eligible capital goods used in the manufacturing set-up cannot be excluded solely on the ground that they function as supporting structures.

---