2010 (1) TMI 1048 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - capital goods - denial of credit on capital goods which are exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted goods - Held that - Under sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 capital goods Cenvat credit is inadmissible only in respect of those capital goods which are exclusively used in the manufacture of exempted goods - in present case it cannot be said that the capital goods in question had been used exclusively for the manufacture of fully exempted finished products - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat credit on capital goods exclusively used for exempted finished products.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal regarding the admissibility of Cenvat credit on capital goods used for manufacturing exempted finished products. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing cotton yarn and man-made fiber yarn, availed Cenvat credit on certain capital goods received in their factory. The Department issued a show cause notice seeking recovery of the credit, alleging ineligibility as the capital goods were used exclusively for exempted products. The Asstt. Commissioner confirmed the demand, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision. The appellant contended that they were also manufacturing dutiable goods during the period in question, availing different duty exemptions under Notifications No. 30/04-C.E. and 29/04-C.E. The appellant argued that they were entitled to Cenvat credit as they were not exclusively manufacturing exempted goods. The Department defended its decision based on the Tribunal's judgment in a previous case, asserting that the goods in question were used solely for exempted products during the relevant period.

The Tribunal analyzed the facts and legal provisions, noting that the capital goods were received during a period when both Notifications No. 30/04-C.E. and 29/04-C.E. were being availed simultaneously. It observed that the capital goods were not exclusively used for fully exempted products as the appellant also availed the optional duty rate under Notification No. 29/04-C.E. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the precedent relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals), emphasizing the availability of different duty options under the notifications. It concluded that the capital goods' Cenvat credit was admissible as they were not used exclusively for exempted goods. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

In summary, the judgment revolved around the interpretation of Cenvat credit rules concerning capital goods used for manufacturing both exempted and dutiable products. The Tribunal held that as the capital goods were not exclusively used for exempted goods and were utilized for products under different duty exemptions simultaneously, the denial of Cenvat credit was incorrect. The decision highlighted the distinction between fully exempted products and those subject to optional duty rates, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant based on the specific circumstances and applicable legal provisions.