CENVAT credit on HR coils, sheets, MS angles allowed pre-July 2009, denied post-notification amendment

CESTAT Bangalore held that CENVAT credit on HR coils, HR sheets, MS angles, MS channels and MS plates used in manufacturing capital goods for constructing plywood manufacturing unit was admissible for period prior to 07.07.2009 based on established precedents. However, for period 07.07.2009 to October 2009, such credit was not admissible due to Explanation 2 inserted in Rule 2(k) definition of input vide Notification No.16/2009-CE(NT) dated 07.07.2009, which specifically excluded these items. Order modified, case remanded to original authority for recalculating demand post-07.07.2009. No penalty imposed on appellants.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of CENVAT credit on inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods for a new plywood manufacturing unit.
2. Period-specific eligibility for CENVAT credit (before and after 07.07.2009).
3. Validity of the demand for reversal of CENVAT credit and imposition of penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on Inputs Used in Manufacture of Capital Goods:

The primary issue in this appeal is the admissibility of CENVAT credit on various inputs such as HR coils, HR Sheets, M.S. Angles, M.S. Channels, and MS plates. The appellant contends that these inputs were used in the manufacture of capital goods required for the new plywood manufacturing unit. The appellant provided RG-23C Part - I records and a Chartered Engineer certificate to support their claim. The appellant cited several judicial precedents and circulars to argue that such inputs are admissible for CENVAT credit.

2. Period-Specific Eligibility for CENVAT Credit:

The Tribunal considered the eligibility for CENVAT credit in two distinct periods:

Period Prior to 07.07.2009:

The Tribunal referenced multiple judgments, including M/s. BMM Ispat Ltd. vs. CCE, Belgaum, Vandana Global Ltd., Thiru Arooran Sugars, and the Larger Bench decision in Mangalam Cement Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that for the period before 07.07.2009, the issue is no longer res integra. The judgments collectively establish that CENVAT credit on inputs used in the fabrication of machinery, support structures, and platforms for machinery is admissible. Specifically, the Tribunal noted:
- "The issue is no more res integra and covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court in Vandana Global's case."
- "As long as it is shown that the 'component' and/or 'accessory' is an integral part of the capital goods, they would also qualify as capital goods."

Period from 07.07.2009 to October 2009:

The Tribunal noted that the definition of 'input' under Rule 2(k) was amended by Notification No.16/2009-CE(NT) dated 07.07.2009. This amendment explicitly excluded items such as HR coils, HR Sheets, M.S. Angles, M.S. Channels, and MS plates from the scope of 'inputs' when used for construction-related activities. The Tribunal cited:
- "Explanation 2 - Input include goods used in the manufacture of capital goods which are further used in the factory of the manufacturer but shall not include cement, angles, channels, centrally wasted Deform bar (CTD) or Thermo Mechanically Treated Bar (TMT) and other items used for construction of factory, shed building or laying of foundation or making of structure for support of capital goods."

3. Validity of the Demand for Reversal of CENVAT Credit and Imposition of Penalty:

The Tribunal concluded that for the period before 07.07.2009, the demand for reversal of CENVAT credit is not sustainable. However, for the period from 07.07.2009 to October 2009, the CENVAT credit on the specified inputs is not admissible. The Tribunal remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority to recalculate the demand for the period after 07.07.2009. Additionally, the Tribunal ruled that no penalty is imposable on the appellants, stating:
- "For the period prior to 07.07.2009, the appellants are eligible to avail CENVAT credit on the inputs... and accordingly, demand confirmed is not sustainable."
- "For the period 07.07.2009 to October 2009, in principle CENVAT credit on the inputs... are not admissible."
- "No penalty is imposable on the appellants."

Conclusion:

The appeal is disposed of with the Tribunal modifying the impugned order and remanding the case for recalculating the demand for the period after 07.07.2009. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant should be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The order was pronounced in open court on 30.08.2024.

---