9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1459 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - Electrode Carbon Paste (ECP) - input/capital goods - case of Revenue is that ECP which is used in furnace for manufacture of finished goods, appears to be capital goods and thereby only 50% of credit is available during a financial year - Held that - There is no denial of the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods get consumed and contained in the Ferro Alloys - The tribunal in the case of Industrial Chemicals & Monomers Ltd. Vs. Collr. Of C.Ex., Madurai 1995 (6) TMI 184 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI , held that carbon paste used in manufacture of calcium carbide either as technical necessity or otherwise, and consumed therein. In the present case, the said Electrode Carbon Paste is in the nature of consumable as it gets consumed in the manufacturing process and also contain in the ferro alloys. Therefore, it cannot be said such goods is capital goods in terms of rule 2(a) of the said Rules - Electrode Carbon Paste used in the process of manufacture of ferro alloys is actually an input eligible for credit under rule 2(k) of the said Rules. Credit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Classification of Electrode Carbon Paste (ECP) as input or capital goods under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 2. Availability of cenvat credit on ECP for the respondent during specific financial years. 3. Disallowance of cenvat credit by the Adjudicating Authority and subsequent appeal by the respondent. 4. Commissioner (Appeal) decision and revenue's appeal against it. Issue 1: Classification of ECP: The Adjudicating Authority contended that ECP used in the furnace for finished goods manufacturing could be considered capital goods, limiting credit availability to 50% per financial year. Revenue argued ECP did not qualify as an 'input' under Rule 2(k) but resembled capital goods per Rule 2(a). Disallowed cenvat credit amounts for 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 were specified. Commissioner (Appeal) reversed this decision, leading to the revenue's present appeal. Issue 2: Cenvat Credit Availability: The respondent, a manufacturer of Ferro Manganese and Silico Manganese, availed cenvat credit on ECP for the financial years 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. The Adjudicating Authority disallowed a portion of this credit, which the Commissioner (Appeal) later overturned, prompting the revenue's appeal. Issue 3: Disallowance and Appeal: The Adjudicating Authority disallowed cenvat credit for specific financial years, prompting an appeal by the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeal) ruled in favor of the respondent, leading to the revenue's current appeal challenging this decision. Issue 4: Commissioner (Appeal) Decision: The revenue challenged the Commissioner (Appeal) decision, arguing that ECP did not demonstrate pro-rata consumption and primarily functioned as an accessory to electrodes. However, the Commissioner (Appeal) found ECP to be consumable in the manufacturing process, citing precedents where similar items were considered inputs. The tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing ECP's consumption in the manufacturing of ferro alloys, making it eligible for credit under rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. This detailed analysis of the legal judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA highlights the dispute over the classification of Electrode Carbon Paste (ECP) and the availability of cenvat credit for the respondent during specific financial years. It covers the disallowance of credit by the Adjudicating Authority, the subsequent appeal and decision by the Commissioner (Appeal), and the revenue's challenge to this decision. The judgment provides a comprehensive examination of the issues involved, citing relevant rules and precedents to support the final decision in favor of the respondent's eligibility for cenvat credit on ECP.
|
