2010 (4) TMI 955 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim for Cenvat Credit on duty paid on elevator denied by Commissioner (Appeals) due to alleged exclusive office use of elevator.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellants claiming Cenvat Credit on duty paid on an elevator, which was denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the assertion that the elevator was solely for office use and not for movement of goods. The original adjudicating authority's observations were considered, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence to establish the elevator's exclusive office use. The deposition of a witness highlighted that technical persons would use the elevator to access the production area on the first floor, indicating its relevance to manufacturing activities. The absence of confirmation regarding exclusive office use further weakened the Commissioner's argument.

The Tribunal noted that the movement of technical persons between floors was directly related to manufacturing activities, aligning with the rule that Cenvat Credit on capital goods should be allowed if used in the factory. It was clarified that the Revenue did not dispute the elevator's use within the factory premises. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's distinction lacked legal basis and, therefore, could not be upheld. Consequently, the appeal by the appellant was allowed, emphasizing the elevator's connection to manufacturing activities within the factory premises.

In summary, the judgment highlighted the importance of substantiated evidence in determining the eligibility for Cenvat Credit on capital goods, emphasizing the relevance of the elevator's use in manufacturing activities within the factory premises. The decision underscored the necessity for legal justification in denying such benefits and upheld the appellant's claim based on the evidence presented regarding the elevator's functional connection to the production area on the first floor.