2023 (6) TMI 1103 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal allows appeal, sets aside Cenvat Credit demand, grants consequential relief.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for Cenvat Credit and providing consequential relief, if any, as per the law. - TMI Wrongful availment of CENVAT Credit - manufacture of Emulsion Matrix (bulk explosive) - whether the disputed goods had been used for the purposes of manufacturing of BMD Vehicles and the Storage Tanks, without which, the Bulk Explosive cannot be prepared? - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the Appeal Paper Book that the Appellant has submitted copy of the Chartered Engineer’s Certificate specifying the usage of the inputs/capital goods in question. This Tribunal, in the Appellant’s own case M/S PRASAD EXPLOSIVE & CHEMICALS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, RANCHI [2022 (10) TMI 514 - CESTAT KOLKATA] for the demand made for the period January 2013 to December 2013 has gone through the issue and dealt in detailed manner and has held I find that the ld.Adjudicating Authority has relied upon the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of [2010 (4) TMI 133 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI (LB)] for dis-allowance of cenvat credit as claimed by the Appellant, which is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. I further find that the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court M/S VANDANA GLOBAL LIMITED AND OTHERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE [2018 (5) TMI 305 - CHHATTISGARH, HIGH COURT] has distinguished the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal on the findings that it is not a good law and various other High Courts have also expressed similar views. Since the issue is identical pertaining to the same Appellant, respectfully following the decision of this Bench, the present Appeal is allowed. Issues involved: Cenvat credit eligibility for manufacturing inputs used in Bulk Mobile Delivery Vehicle (BMD).Summary:The Appellant, a manufacturer of bulk explosive, faced a Show Cause Notice alleging ineligibility to take Cenvat Credit for various manufacturing items used in their Bulk Mobile Delivery Vehicle (BMD). The Lower Authorities confirmed the demand, leading the Appellant to appeal before the Tribunal. The Appellant submitted a Chartered Engineer's Certificate to prove the usage of the items within the manufacturing plant. The Appellant cited a previous Tribunal order where a similar demand was rejected, emphasizing the identical nature of the current case.In the detailed examination, it was established that the disputed goods were crucial for manufacturing BMD Vehicles and Storage Tanks, essential for preparing Bulk Explosive. The Adjudicating Authority's reliance on a previous decision for disallowing the Cenvat credit was found inapplicable. Citing a High Court decision, it was concluded that the impugned demand could not be sustained, leading to its setting aside. Given the identical nature of the issue with a previous case involving the same Appellant, the Tribunal allowed the present Appeal in line with the previous decision.Final Decision:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for Cenvat Credit and providing consequential relief, if any, as per the law.