9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1154 - HC - Central ExciseAdmissibility of Cenvat credit - in view of the definition of Capital Goods under Rule 2(b) of Rules, 2004 - CENVAT Credit availed treating Welding Electrodes consumed as capital good - Appellant contended that as per Rule 2(a)(A)(iii), Welding Electrodes would come within the term components so as to fall within the category of capital goods - Held that - Section 2(a)(A)(iii) says that in respect to items mentioned in 2(a)(A)(i) and (ii), components, spares and accessories of the goods specified thereunder would also fall within the category of capital goods . Having failed to point out application of any other provision under Rule 2 (a), the stress on the part of assessee was on the term components under Rule 2 (a)(A) (iii) and it is contended that Welding Electrodes , being used for maintenance and repair of machineries and factories, would fall in the category of components, hence would be entitled for CENVAT Credit being capital goods . It is found that capital goods as defined under Rule 2(a) of Rules 2004, in substance, are pari-materia with the capital goods specified in Rule 57-Q of Rules, 1944 and there is no substantial difference therein. Considering a similar argument in the context of Rule 57-Q of Rules, 1944, as it stood in 1999, similar question and submissions have already been considered by this Court recently in M/s Upper Ganges Sugar & Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Customs & Central Excise 2015 (5) TMI 569 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . therefore, by following the same, Cenvat credit is not admissible in view of the definition of Capital Goods under Rule 2(b) of Rules, 2004. - Decided against the assessee
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "capital goods" under Rule 2(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Admissibility of CENVAT Credit on welding electrodes used in the manufacturing process of sugar. 3. Application of Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in determining the eligibility for CENVAT Credit. 4. Consideration of components as "capital goods" under Rule 2(a)(A)(iii) of the Rules, 2004. Detailed Analysis: 1. The High Court examined the definition of "capital goods" under Rule 2(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which includes various categories such as pollution control equipment, moulds, refractories, and components. The Court emphasized that the definition is exhaustive and specifies items that qualify as capital goods when used in the manufacturing process or for providing output services. The term "components" under Rule 2(a)(A)(iii) was highlighted as relevant to the case. 2. The issue of admissibility of CENVAT Credit on welding electrodes used in the manufacturing process of sugar was raised. The appellant, a sugar manufacturing company, claimed CENVAT Credit on welding electrodes treated as capital goods. The dispute arose when a show cause notice challenged the admissibility of the credit, leading to penalties imposed by the Deputy Commissioner Central Excise. 3. The Court considered the application of Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which was invoked by the appellant to support their claim for CENVAT Credit on welding electrodes. The Tribunal's decision and the subsequent appeals process were reviewed, noting the dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the partial allowance by the Tribunal based on precedent judgments. 4. The argument regarding components falling under the category of capital goods under Rule 2(a)(A)(iii) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was analyzed. The appellant contended that welding electrodes, used for maintenance and repair of machinery, should be considered components and thus entitled to CENVAT Credit as capital goods. The Court compared the definition of capital goods under Rule 2(a) with the provisions of Rule 57-Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, finding no substantial difference. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the Assessee based on the interpretation of the term "capital goods" and the eligibility criteria for CENVAT Credit as outlined in the relevant rules. The judgment highlighted the exhaustive nature of the definition of capital goods and the importance of specific provisions in determining admissibility for credit under the CENVAT scheme.
|
