2023 (11) TMI 1411 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit on MS steel items used to fabricate and support factory machinery allowed; denial order set aside.

The dominant issue was whether CENVAT credit was admissible on MS steel items (pipes, fittings, channels, sheets, etc.) used for fabrication/support of ... CENVAT Credit - moulded steel items like pipes, fittings, channels, sheets etc. - denial of credit on the ground that the capital goods used in construction of structures for machinery and not components, parts, accessories or spares of machinery, which are used in manufacture of finished goods - HELD THAT:- The Appellant is entitled to Cenvat Credit for the MS steel items under dispute either under Rule 2(a) or 2(k) of CCR. There is no dispute with regard to receipt of the inputs or capital goods in the factory and utilisation thereof. Further, it is found that the very basis of dis-allowance, no longer exists, as ruling of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. [2018 (5) TMI 305 - CHHATTISGARH, HIGH COURT], have been set aside by the Chattisgarh High Court. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether Cenvat credit on moulded steel/MS items (pipes, fittings, channels, sheets, angles, beams, plates, etc.) received and used within the factory for fabrication, mechanical maintenance, repair or replacement of plant and machinery is admissible either as capital goods under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or alternatively as inputs under Rule 2(k) of those Rules. (ii) Whether denial of such credit on the ground that the MS items were used for 'construction of structures for machinery'/'structural support' could be sustained when the adjudicating basis relied upon (the Larger Bench view in Vandana Global) was no longer operative due to being set aside by the jurisdictional High Court referred to by the Tribunal. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Admissibility of Cenvat credit on MS items as capital goods and/or inputs Legal framework (as discussed by the Tribunal): The Tribunal considered the definitions in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: Rule 2(a) defining 'capital goods' (including specified goods and 'components, spares and accessories' and certain identified items like tubes, pipes and fittings), and Rule 2(k) defining 'input' (including 'all goods used in the factory by the manufacturer of the final product'). Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal treated as material the undisputed facts that the MS items were received in the factory and were utilised in relation to the installed plant and machinery for fabrication, mechanical maintenance, repair or replacement, in a cement manufacturing unit producing dutiable final products. It found that, on these facts, the credit was available either under Rule 2(a) as capital goods (including as parts/components/spares/accessories, as applicable) or under Rule 2(k) as inputs, since the goods were used in the factory and their receipt and utilisation were not in dispute. Conclusion: Cenvat credit on the disputed MS items was held admissible to the appellant under Rule 2(a) and/or Rule 2(k), given the admitted receipt and use within the factory for fabrication/maintenance/repair/replacement connected to plant and machinery used in manufacture. Issue (ii): Sustainability of denial based on 'structural support' rationale and reliance on Vandana Global Legal framework (as discussed by the Tribunal): The Tribunal examined the revenue's reliance on a prior Larger Bench ruling to deny credit for MS items used in fabrication of support structures, and the appellant's contention that the said Larger Bench ruling had been set aside by a High Court decision referred to in the order. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal held that the 'very basis' for the disallowance did not survive because the Larger Bench ruling relied upon by revenue had been set aside by the High Court mentioned in the judgment. Since receipt and utilisation in the factory were undisputed and the foundational precedent supporting disallowance no longer stood, the impugned denial could not be maintained. Conclusion: The denial of credit premised on the overturned Larger Bench view was unsustainable; accordingly, the impugned order denying credit was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential benefits in accordance with law.