2018 (3) TMI 15 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal granted: Structural steel items eligible for CENVAT credit under Capital Goods definition.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the eligibility of CENVAT credit on structural steel ... CENVAT credit - capital goods - M.S. Channels, M.S. Angles, M.S. Beams, M.S. Plates, S.S Plate etc - Held that: - identical issue decided in the case of M/s. Singhal Enterprises Private Limited Versus The Commissioner Customs & Central Excise, Raipur [2016 (9) TMI 682 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that applying the “User Test” to the facts in hand, we have no hesitation in holding that the structural items used in the fabrication of support structures would fall within the ambit of ‘Capital Goods’ as contemplated under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, hence will be entitled to the Cenvat Credit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues involved:Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) regarding eligibility of CENVAT credit on structural steel items used in making supporting structures of capital goods.Analysis:- The appeal was filed against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the eligibility of CENVAT credit on various structural steel items used in making supporting structures of capital goods.- The appellant availed CENVAT credit on items like M.S. Channels, M.S. Angles, M.S. Beams, M.S. Plates, S.S Plate, used for making supporting structures of capital goods.- A show cause notice was issued for recovery of credit, and on adjudication, the demand was confirmed with interest and penalty.- The appellant argued that the items were eligible for credit as per the definition of Input Service under Rule 2(k) of CCR, 2004.- Reference was made to a judgment by the Principal Bench at Delhi in a similar case to support the claim for credit.- The Revenue supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in denying the credit.- The Tribunal considered the issue of eligibility of CENVAT credit on structural steel items in the making of supporting structures of capital goods.- The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment and the application of the user test to determine whether the items could be considered as capital goods.- It was held that the structural items used in the fabrication of support structures fell within the ambit of Capital Goods as per Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules.- Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief as per law.This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the judgment thoroughly, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and decision-making process involved in the case.