The main legal point established is the need for verification and consideration of supporting documents before accepting a Chartered accountant certificate as the sole basis for a decision.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata, (Tribunal) in Excise appeal No. 76425/2016.

2. The revenue has raised the following questions of law for our consideration:-

(i) Whether the respondent can avail Cenvat credit on the goods which are not in the nature of 'Capital Goods' in terms of Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the same are not used for excisable final products?

(ii) Whether the Learned Tribunal is justified in relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SLR Steels while coming to its conclusion that the credit on the disputed items is available as inputs having been used in the fabrication of storage tanks though in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the aforesaid decision is not applicable?

(iii) Whether in terms of Explanation 2 of Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 the respondent is eligible to avail Cenvat credit on the disputed items used in fabrication of storage tanks within the factory premises?

(iv) Whether the Learned Tribunal before setting aside the order of the adjudicating authority on the basis of the certificate of Chartered accountants' dated 23.08.2016 ought to have considered that the said certificate was never produced before the adjudicating authority and the contents of the certificate remained unverified by the Department and as such the order passed by the Learned Tribunal is bad in law?

(v) Whether the Learned Tribunal committed gross error in not appreciating that the Chartered accountant's certificate is, at best, only corroborative evidence and the same cannot be sole or conclusive evidence particularly when there is no specific provision in the Rules for the acceptance of such certificates?

3. We have heard Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Ms S. Majumder and Mr. a.Roy for the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. Rahul Dhannuka and Mr. H. Choudhury, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee.

4. The respondent/assessee is registered with the Central Excise Department engaged in the manufacture of Palm Oil and Soyabean oil. During the scrutiny of the documents for the period from 2010-2011 to 2012-2013 the department noticed that the assessee had taken credit of duty in respect of various structural material like 'MS Channel, MS angle, Joist, TMT, cements, Plates etc' which are covered under Chapter 72 and 73 of the Central Excide Tariff act, 1985. The department further noticed that during the aforesaid period the assessee had erected structural items like platforms, structures for carrying pipe lines, structure for resting capital goods and mainly for building foundation for capital goods, such materials have been used, erected and installed at the site within the factory premises. an audit objection was raised pursuant to which the assessee was called upon to furnish documents and offer their explanation.

5. The revenue was of the prima facie view that the credit availed by the assessee on the aforementioned capital goods was not admissible in terms of Rule 2 (k) read with Explanation 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as in cases where inputs were used in the manufacture of capital goods which were further used in the factory for manufacture were to be treated as inputs and not as capital goods. Further, the revenue was of the view that the assessee had taken Cenvat Credit on the said inputs treating as capital goods resulting in wrong availment of Cenvat credit to the tune of Rs. 3,00,47,898/- during the aforementioned period. The revenue was also of the prima facie view that these amounted to wilful suppression of relevant facts and the inadmissible Cenvat Credit availed during the period as recoverable. With these allegations show cause notice dated 27.03.2015 was issued in which apart from aforementioned proposal there was a proposal to levy the inte