2011 (11) TMI 582 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - appellants filed declaration in respect of Grinding Media and Cylpebs for availing MODVAT credit as inputs after a period of 6 months - Held that - prior to Feb 96, before the definition of capital goods was changed, such Grinding Media has been allowed CENVAT credit as capital goods . In view of the change, the appellants were entitled to credit during the impugned period September 96 to Nov 96 as inputs whereas initially they filed declaration claiming capital goods credit. But there cannot be any question that they had not filed declaration and claimed credit within 6 months as appeared from the dates mentioned in the table above and it is also supported by the communication from the department initially rejecting their claim for capital goods credit by documents at pages 8-11 of the appeal paper book. Hence, the only ground of delay in claim beyond 6 months does not survive. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and it is held that the appellants are eligible for credit on the impugned goods as inputs - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Timely filing of declaration for availing MODVAT credit.
2. Classification of goods as "capital goods" or "inputs."
3. Eligibility of appellants for credit on impugned goods.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolves around the timely filing of declarations for availing MODVAT credit. The lower appellate authority upheld the denial of credit by the original authority due to the appellants filing declarations after a period of 6 months. However, it was found that the appellants initially filed declarations within the 6-month period for the impugned consignments, claiming credit for the goods as "capital goods." The change in the definition of "capital goods" before Feb'96 allowed the Grinding Media to be considered as such. The communication from the department also supported the initial rejection of the claim for capital goods credit. Therefore, the delay in claiming credit beyond 6 months was not a valid ground, and the impugned order denying credit was set aside.

2. Another issue addressed in the judgment is the classification of the impugned goods as either "capital goods" or "inputs." The appellants initially claimed credit for the Grinding Media and Cylpebs as capital goods, but due to the change in the definition, they were entitled to credit for the impugned period as inputs. The dates mentioned in the table and the communication from the department confirmed that the appellants did not file declarations and claim credit within 6 months as required. However, based on the historical context and the change in classification, it was held that the appellants are eligible for credit on the impugned goods as inputs, not capital goods.

3. Lastly, the eligibility of the appellants for credit on the impugned goods was established in the judgment. Despite the delay in filing declarations beyond the 6-month period, the appellants were deemed eligible for credit on the impugned goods as inputs. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellants were granted the benefit of the appeal with consequential benefits. This decision highlights the importance of understanding the evolving definitions and requirements for claiming credit under MODVAT rules and ensuring timely compliance to avoid disputes and denials of credit.