Appellate Tribunal grants CENVAT credit on maintenance materials

Nava Bharat Ventures Ltd Versus The Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam

Nava Bharat Ventures Ltd Versus The Commissioner of Central Tax Visakhapatnam - TMI Issues:
1. Entitlement to CENVAT credit on MS channels, angles, plates, joists under Chapter 72 of CENVAT Credit Rules for maintenance of capital goods.
2. Proof required to establish the usage of materials for repair/maintenance of capital goods to claim CENVAT credit.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Entitlement to CENVAT Credit
The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal that initially allowed CENVAT credit on MS channels, angles, plates, joists used for maintenance of capital goods. The Revenue appealed against this decision, leading to the current appeal. The appellant argued that prior to 07.07.2009, materials used for fabrication and maintenance of capital goods were considered inputs. They cited various cases, including the Vandana Global Ltd case, to support their claim for CENVAT credit. The appellant contended that the issue had been settled through legal precedents, emphasizing their entitlement to the credit based on the High Court's decision in the CCE Vs Singhal Enterprises case. The bench acknowledged the legal history and precedent, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant's entitlement to CENVAT credit on the materials in question.

Issue 2: Proof of Usage for CENVAT Credit
The Assistant Commissioner highlighted the requirement for the appellant to prove that the materials were indeed used for repair/maintenance of capital goods to claim CENVAT credit. The Range Officer's inquiry revealed a lack of definitive proof regarding the utilization of the materials as reported by the Manager (Works) of the appellant. The appellant, however, presented sheets from the Finance Department detailing the usage of materials, including specific invoice-wise information on where the materials were utilized. The appellant argued that these records substantiated their claim for CENVAT credit, disputing the Range Officer's findings. The bench considered the practical challenges in establishing a direct correlation between specific materials and their usage in repair/maintenance activities. Despite these challenges, the bench found the appellant's documentation from the Finance Department to be sufficient evidence of the materials' usage for maintenance/repair of capital goods in their factory. Consequently, the bench ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal for CENVAT credit on the materials in question.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad, delivered by Member (Technical) P. Venkata Subba Rao, resolved the issues of entitlement to CENVAT credit on specific materials used for maintenance of capital goods and the proof required to establish their usage. The decision upheld the appellant's right to claim CENVAT credit based on legal precedents and satisfactory documentation demonstrating the materials' utilization for repair/maintenance activities.