Rathi Steel And Power Limited Vs Commissioner of C.G.S.T. And Central Excise (CESTAT Kolkata)
The appeal concerned denial of CENVAT credit on various items used by the appellant during the period from October 2005 to June 2007. The disputed items included M.S. Angles, Beams, Channels, Plates, Flats, TMT Bars, Rounds, Rails, G.C. Sheets, Welding Electrodes, Nuts & Bolts, which were claimed as inputs, and C.R. Sheets, Electrical Goods, Fabrication Materials, M.S. Gratings, Port Barrel Assembly, Rod Grates, Norma/Suprtheme and Vitrea M, which were claimed as capital goods. The Department denied the credit through multiple show cause notices on the ground that these items did not qualify as “inputs” or “capital goods” under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
The matter was adjudicated and the credit was disallowed by the adjudicating authority. Challenging the order, the appellant contended that the adjudicating authority had itself recorded that all the disputed items were required for production of the final products. The appellant further relied on the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Vandana Global Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur, which held that where an assessee is able to demonstrate that the items are essential for manufacture of the final product, whether as inputs or capital goods, CENVAT credit is admissible.
