CENVAT credit on steel fabrication items allowed where they formed integral parts of plant and machinery; extended limitation rejected.

MS Angles, MS Channels, MS Pipes and similar steel items used to fabricate plant, machinery and connected systems qualified for CENVAT credit because they were shown to form integral parts of the manufacturing setup under the user test. The later restriction on credit for structural steel used as support structures was held not to apply retrospectively to the period in dispute. The extended limitation period was unavailable because the record showed prior departmental knowledge, disclosure in returns and no proof of wilful suppression with intent to evade duty. The demand, interest and penalties were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether MS Angles, MS Channels, MS Pipes and similar steel items used for fabrication of plant and machinery, supports and connected systems qualified for CENVAT credit as capital goods or eligible inputs. (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the allegation of suppression of facts and misstatement.

Issue (i): Whether MS Angles, MS Channels, MS Pipes and similar steel items used for fabrication of plant and machinery, supports and connected systems qualified for CENVAT credit as capital goods or eligible inputs.

Analysis: The disputed goods were shown by the Chartered Engineer's report and the departmental verification to have been used for fabrication and installation of machinery, platforms, ducts, chimneys, conveyors, cranes, hoppers and other connected systems forming part of the manufacturing setup. The Tribunal applied the user test and the principle that components and accessories integral to capital goods fall within the scope of the credit scheme. It also noted that the later amendment restricting credit on structural steel for support structures could not be given retrospective effect for the period in dispute.

Conclusion: The credit was admissible and the disallowance could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked on the allegation of suppression of facts and misstatement.

Analysis: The records showed prior departmental knowledge of the credit availment, disclosure in returns, and contemporaneous verification by departmental officers. No material was produced to establish wilful suppression with intent to evade duty. The factual record therefore did not justify invocation of the extended period.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was not available to the department.

Final Conclusion: The impugned demand, interest and penalties were set aside and the appellant obtained consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Steel items used to fabricate machinery-related systems and other integral parts of plant and machinery are eligible for credit when they satisfy the user test and form an integral part of capital goods, and the extended period cannot be invoked without proof of wilful suppression.

---