Cenvat credit on embedded steel structures upheld; inordinate delay in refiling also rejected.

Cenvat credit on iron and steel items used in structures embedded to earth was treated as settled in favour of the assessee, as the later legal position recognised credit where the relevant amendment operated prospectively; the merits challenge therefore failed. The revenue also failed to show sufficient cause for an extraordinary delay in refiling the appeal, because the papers were repeatedly returned for defects and were refiled only after long gaps without a satisfactory explanation, including for the period before the COVID-19 disruption; condonation was refused. The impugned order in favour of the assessee was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand for denial of Cenvat credit on iron and steel items used in structures embedded to earth was sustainable on merits. (ii) Whether the inordinate delay in refiling the revenue appeal was liable to be condoned.

Issue (i): Whether the demand for denial of Cenvat credit on iron and steel items used in structures embedded to earth was sustainable on merits.

Analysis: The dispute on merits was treated as settled in favour of the assessee. The Court noted that the earlier view denying credit had been reversed and that the subsequent position accepted the benefit of credit where the amendment was held to operate prospectively. In that view, the question of suppression and the extended period of limitation was not required to be examined further for the purpose of the appeal.

Conclusion: The merits were in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the inordinate delay in refiling the revenue appeal was liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The appeal had been repeatedly returned for defects and was refiled after long intervals, with no satisfactory explanation for the prolonged gap. The Court held that the explanation did not show sufficient cause for the extraordinary delay in refiling, including the period preceding the COVID-19 disruption.

Conclusion: The delay in refiling was not liable to be condoned.

Final Conclusion: The revenue challenge failed both on merits and on limitation, and the impugned order in favour of the assessee was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantive tax issue stands settled in favour of the assessee and the appellant fails to show sufficient cause for an inordinate delay in refiling, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

---