Judgment:
H.K. Thakur, J.
1. This stay application and appeal have been filed by the appellant against OIA No.PJ/173/VDR-I/2013-14, dt.21.06.2013 under which OIO No.Dem/13-14/AC/D-Anand/12-13, dt.07.06.2012, passed by adjudicating authority, has been upheld. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether appellant is eligible to take CENVAT Credit on M.S. Plates, Hot Rolled Coils, S.S. Coils and H.R. plates. First appellate authority has rejected the claim of the appellant on the basis of Vandana Global Ltd case [2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri-LB)] read with retrospective amendment of Explanation-2 to Rule 2(k) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
2. Shri P.G. Mehta (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that appellant has not taken any CENVAT Credit on the goods like Cement, Angles, Channels, Centrally Twisted Bars (CTD) or TMT Bars or any other items used for construction of factory shed, building or laying of foundations or making of structures for support of capital goods as per amendment carried out to Explanation-2 to Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. That the inputs used by the appellant are for manufacture of vessels/tanks for further use in manufacturing activity and that this issue is being agitated from 2003 as per OIA No.Comr(A)/264/VDR-I/2004, dt.19.08.2004/23.08.2004. That such credit on inputs for making capital goods has been held to be admissible in view of the following case laws:-
i). CCE Jaipur Vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [2010 (255) ELT 481 (Guj.)]
ii). Metrochem Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE Vadodara-I [2013 (292) ELT 578 (Tri-Ahmd)]
Learned Advocate also produced a certificate dt.23.11.2013 of Shri Kanubhai R. Shah, Chartered Engineer to argue that inputs for which credit has been denied are actually being used for manufacturing machinery accessories and equipments, further used in the manufacture of their dutiable finished goods.
3. Dr. J. Nagori (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that Chartered Engineers certificate was not produced before the lower authorities and hence credit was correctly denied to the appellant.
4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. As the issue lies in a narrow compass, therefore, after allowing the stay application the appeal itself is taken up for disposal. It is the claim of the appellant that the impugned items are used for making vessels and tanks which are further used in the manufacture of their dutiable finished goods. It is observed from Para 7.3 and 7.4 of the OIO dt.07.06.2012, passed by adjudicating authority, that appellant did argue that impugned plates, coils etc are used for making vessels and machines. Neither the lower authority asked for any Chartered Engineers certificate nor appellant provided any evidence to the lower authorities in support of the argument that all goods, on which credit is proposed to be denied, were in fact used only for making capital goods like vessels and tanks. Reliance placed by the appellant on a Chartered Engineers certificate during the course of hearing before this Bench cannot straight away be accepted. The matter is required to be remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the claim of the appellant that impugned goods/inputs are in fact used for making vessels/tanks or other machinery accessories. Appellant is also required to produce all documentary evidences in support of their claim that all the goods/inputs involved in the present proceedings, were in fact used for making vessels/tanks or other machineries or machinery accessories further used in the manufacture of dutiable final products. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant to produce all the relevant records/certificates and to explain their case.
5. Appeal filed by the appellant is allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.