2009 (1) TMI 618 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Interpretation of the definition of "capital goods" for Cenvat credit entitlement and consideration of waiver of pre-deposit during pendency of appeal.

Interpretation of "capital goods" for Cenvat credit:
The appellant contended that various steel construction materials used in manufacturing final products are essential for capital goods, thus entitling them to Cenvat credit. However, the adjudicating authority concluded that these goods were not used in the manufacture of final products without examining the definition of capital goods. The appellant argued that the previous Tribunal order directed the authority to decide on the admissibility of credit for certain goods, and passing the impugned order during the pendency of that matter would cause further hardship. The appellant also sought waiver of pre-deposit citing a decision of the Tribunal. The Revenue argued that the definition of "capital goods" does not cover the appellant's goods for Cenvat credit and highlighted the appellant's failure to provide relevant information. The Revenue emphasized that the matter had been thoroughly examined by the adjudicating authority.

Decision on Cenvat credit entitlement:
After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the appellant had not submitted relevant information to the adjudicating authority and failed to demonstrate how their goods could be considered as capital goods. The Tribunal noted that the previous Tribunal order was pending decision by the adjudicating authority, but the authority had already decided on the present case. The Tribunal also observed that the matter pending before the Larger Bench did not directly relate to the appellant's goods. Consequently, the Tribunal did not find merit in the appellant's case for total waiver of pre-deposit and directed them to make a pre-deposit within a specified timeframe to stay the realization of the balance demand inclusive of penalty.