Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2004 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (12) TMI 591 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on capital goods installed after 1-4-2000. 2. Denial of deemed credit on MS Ingots due to payment method. 3. Interpretation of Board's Circular on Cenvat credit eligibility. 4. Granting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery. Issue 1: Denial of Cenvat credit on capital goods installed after 1-4-2000 The appellants were denied Cenvat credit of Rs. 2,14,182 on capital goods installed in their factory after 1-4-2000. The relevant Rule, Rule 57AC(2)(c), allows credit on capital goods received but not installed before April 1, 2000, with a condition on the amount. The Tribunal found no dispute that the goods were installed post the specified date, making them prima facie eligible for the credit. Issue 2: Denial of deemed credit on MS Ingots due to payment method A deemed credit of Rs. 2,08,466 on MS Ingots was denied as payment for the ingots procured from another unit was not made by cheque or cash. The lower authorities disallowed the credit based on this. However, a Tribunal decision in Shiva Agrico Implements Ltd. v. CCE was cited, apparently in favor of the appellants, indicating a precedent supporting their case. Issue 3: Interpretation of Board's Circular on Cenvat credit eligibility The ld. DR relied on Circular No. 522/18/2000 to argue that for capital goods received until 31-3-2000, the appellants are ineligible for Cenvat credit. However, the Tribunal found the Rule cited by the Counsel to be clear, making the Board's clarification unnecessary for a prima facie view in this instance. Issue 4: Granting waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery Considering a strong prima facie case for the appellants, the Tribunal granted waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning the duty and penalty amounts. This decision was dictated and pronounced in open Court, providing relief to the appellants based on the merits of their case.
|