Structural steel plates used as machinery components qualify for CENVAT credit under Rule 2(a) CCR 2004

CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit on structural steel items used in plant modernization. The Commissioner denied credit on plates under Chapter 72, claiming exclusion from capital goods definition. CESTAT held that items under Chapters 84 and 85 qualified as capital goods under Rule 2(a) CCR 2004. For remaining items under Chapters 72, 73, and 74, the authority erroneously rejected the CE certificate confirming plates were used as components of machinery like kilns and milling machines, not building materials. Since plates served as inputs for capital goods rather than construction materials, credit was allowable. The demand was unsustainable, eliminating interest and penalty obligations.

---

---

Issues involved: Determination of eligibility of CENVAT Credit on plates under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as inputs or capital goods.

Summary:

Issue 1: Classification of plates under different chapters and eligibility for CENVAT Credit:
The Appellant, engaged in manufacturing iron and steel products, availed CENVAT Credit on plates procured for modernization of the plant. The Ld. Commissioner denied the credit alleging the plates were neither capital goods nor inputs. The Appellant contended that plates under Chapters 69, 84, and 85 qualify as capital goods under Rule 2(a) of the CCR, 2004. The impugned order failed to consider detailed submissions and supplier invoices. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellant, holding that plates under Chapters 84 and 85 qualify as capital goods, setting aside the demand.

Issue 2: End use certification and denial of credit on certain plates:
The Appellant provided a certificate from a Chartered Engineer certifying the end use of plates under Chapters 72 and 73. The impugned order incorrectly dismissed the certificate, stating the plates were used for construction purposes. The Tribunal found the plates were used in machinery manufacturing, qualifying as capital goods, and overturned the denial of credit based on the Chartered Engineer's certification.

Issue 3: Legal precedents and applicability of CENVAT Credit on support structures:
The impugned order relied on a CESTAT decision regarding denial of CENVAT Credit on plates used for support structures. However, a subsequent decision by the Chhattisgarh High Court reversed this, stating goods used in structures embedded to earth should be treated as inputs for capital goods. The Tribunal, following this legal interpretation, held that the plates in question were inputs for capital goods, making them eligible for the availed credit. Consequently, the demand in the impugned order was deemed unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant, setting aside the impugned order due to the eligibility of plates for CENVAT Credit as capital goods and inputs, as per the legal interpretations and evidence presented.

---