2010 (5) TMI 746 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - inputs used for Research and Development activities - Held that - the manufacturing activity of the appellant is as such that the input procured by the appellant is first to be tested and then they have to be taken into the manufacturing process. Moreover, if some variations found with regard to the quality of input, it is to be retested as per required composition - the appellants are entitled for CENVAT credit availed on such inputs which went for testing and analysis to manufacture the final product. The CENVAT credit on capital goods used in R & D section is also entitled as the same has been used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on inputs used for Research & Development (R&D) activities
- Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on capital goods installed in the Research & Development (R&D) Department

Analysis:
1. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on Inputs for R&D Activities:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing organic and inorganic chemicals, utilized various inputs exclusively for R&D purposes, including development of new products and quality control. The issue revolved around whether such inputs qualified for Cenvat Credit under Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant argued that R&D activities were integral to the manufacturing process, as without them, the final products could not be produced. They cited case laws to support their contention, emphasizing that the inputs used indirectly in or in relation to the manufacture of final products should be eligible for Cenvat Credit. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that the testing and analysis conducted in the R&D section were essential for manufacturing the final product. Therefore, the Cenvat Credit on inputs used for R&D activities was deemed admissible.

2. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit on Capital Goods in R&D Department:
Regarding the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on capital goods installed in the R&D Department situated within the factory, the appellant argued that these capital goods were crucial for R&D activities, which were essential for the manufacturing process. They contended that as per Rule 2(a)(A) of the CCR, 2004, capital goods installed in the factory premises were eligible for Cenvat Credit. The appellant supported their argument with various judgments. The Tribunal concurred with the appellant's stance, emphasizing that the capital goods used in R&D, which formed an integral part of the manufacturing activity, should be allowed Cenvat Credit. As these capital goods were not exclusively used for exempt goods, they were not in violation of Rule 6(4) of CCR, 2004. Therefore, the Cenvat Credit on capital goods installed in the R&D Department was deemed admissible.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the appellants, granting them consequential relief. The judgment highlighted the integral role of R&D activities in the manufacturing process, affirming the admissibility of Cenvat Credit on inputs and capital goods used for R&D purposes.