2023 (12) TMI 112 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit allowed as amendment to Rule 2(k) cannot apply retrospectively, penalty set aside

M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd., Shri Piyush Raj, Vice President (Tech) and Shri Shyam Bihari Maheshwari Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad

M/s Ultratech Cement Ltd., Shri Piyush Raj, Vice President (Tech) and Shri Shyam Bihari Maheshwari Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad - TMI Issues Involved:The issues involved in the judgment are denial of CENVAT credit on steel items used in the manufacture of support structures for capital goods and PSC Sleepers for laying railway line, recovery of interest, and imposition of penalties.Denial of CENVAT Credit:The Appellants filed appeals against the Order-in-Original confirming the denial of credit availed on steel items used in the manufacture of support structures for capital goods and PSC Sleepers. The Adjudicating Authority ordered recovery of the amount representing the inadmissible credit, along with interest and penalties. The denial was based on the amendment to Explanation 2 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, which excluded certain items used for construction of structures for support of capital goods. However, the High Court held that the amendment would not have retrospective effect, and various decisions supported the admissibility of credit on inputs used in the fabrication of support structures for capital goods.Legal Precedents and Decisions:The Tribunal and High Courts have consistently ruled in favor of allowing CENVAT credit on steel items used for fabrication of support structures for capital goods. The decision in the case of Vandana Global, which formed the basis of the denial of credit, was overruled by various High Courts. The 'User Test' was applied to determine the admissibility of credit, and several cases supported the availment of credit on steel items used for fabrication purposes. Additionally, the decision regarding the availment of credit on PSC poles was supported by a ruling of the Rajasthan High Court.Imposition of Penalties:The Adjudicating Authority imposed penalties on the main Appellant and other individuals involved. However, in light of the discussions and legal precedents regarding the admissibility of CENVAT credit on steel items, the imposition of penalties was deemed unsustainable. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals filed by the Appellants were allowed with consequential relief.Conclusion:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD addressed the denial of CENVAT credit on steel items used in the manufacture of support structures for capital goods and PSC Sleepers. The decision was based on legal precedents, the interpretation of relevant rules, and the application of the 'User Test' to determine the admissibility of credit. Ultimately, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the Appellants.