2023 (9) TMI 1086 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant wins Cenvat credit dispute on steel items used in manufacturing drums

Polycab Wires Pvt Limited Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Vadodara-ii

Polycab Wires Pvt Limited Versus C.C.E. & S.T. -Vadodara-ii - TMI Issues Involved:1. Eligibility of Cenvat Credit on MS Channel, MS Angles, MS Drums, MS Pipe, HR Sheets, CR Sheets, MS Fabricated support etc.2. Classification of goods as capital goods or inputs under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.3. Invocation of extended period of limitation and associated penalties.Summary:1. Eligibility of Cenvat Credit:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing electric wires and cables, claimed Cenvat credit on various steel items used in the manufacture of processed drums and packing drums. The department argued that these goods do not qualify as capital goods or components under Rule 2(a)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, leading to the issuance of multiple show cause notices proposing denial and recovery of Cenvat credit along with interest and penalties.2. Classification of Goods:The Adjudicating Authority denied the Cenvat credit on grounds that the goods were neither capital goods nor inputs. The appellant contended that these goods were used in the manufacturing process and thus should be considered as parts or accessories of capital goods, making them eligible for credit under Rule 2(a)(A)(iii). They also argued that the goods fall under the definition of inputs as per Explanation 2 to Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, since they were used in the manufacture of capital goods within the factory. The Tribunal supported this view, citing various judgments such as *Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills* and *Vandana Global Ltd*, which affirmed that goods used in the manufacture of capital goods are eligible for Cenvat credit.3. Extended Period of Limitation and Penalties:The appellant argued against the invocation of the extended period of limitation, asserting that there was no suppression of facts as they regularly filed ER-1 returns disclosing the availment of Cenvat credit. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the issue involved interpretation of Cenvat Credit Rules and there was no intent to evade duty. Consequently, the demand for the extended period was deemed unsustainable, and penalties were not justified.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the appellant is entitled to Cenvat credit on the disputed goods, both as capital goods and inputs. The extended period of limitation and associated penalties were also found to be unjustified. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.