2010 (3) TMI 1070 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Denial of Cenvat credit on capital goods installed in a separate unit owned by the appellant.

Summary:

Issue 1: The appellants availed Cenvat credit on capital goods installed in a separate unit, leading to a show cause notice demanding the credit back. The original authority upheld the demand, which was further confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Details: The appellants argued that the capital goods were installed in their own unit, and the goods manufactured from these capital goods were consumed in their own unit. They cited a Tribunal decision in a similar case and highlighted that there was no revenue loss. The Revenue contended that the unit should have been registered, as per the Cenvat Credit Rules.

Judgment: The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of credit, stating that the capital goods installed in a different unit cannot be availed in the registered unit. However, the Tribunal found that the denial of Cenvat credit was incorrect based on the precedent set by a previous case. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, following the decision in the case of Pooja Forge Ltd.

Key Takeaways:
- Appellants availed Cenvat credit on capital goods installed in a separate unit.
- Original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of credit.
- Tribunal overturned the decision based on precedent and allowed the appeal.
- Precedent case: Pooja Forge Ltd. vs. CCE [2006 (196) ELT 18(T)].
- Denial of Cenvat credit deemed incorrect, and the impugned order was set aside.