2010 (6) TMI 424 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - the appellants were served with a show cause notice on 10-6-08, proposing to disallow Modvat Credit of Rs. 1,42,78,588/- along with interest and imposition of penalty on the ground that since M/s. ITC Ltd. was not a financing company, the availment of Modvat Credit of the appellant was de-barred under Rule 4(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - Held that - Rule 4(3) does not require procurement of capital goods from the financing company but is enabling and enlarging sub-rule allowing Modvat Credit even in those cases where the capital goods have been procured from a financing company - appellant is entitled to the benefit of Modvat Credit

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Modvat Credit on capital goods under Rule 4(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad involved the disallowance of Modvat Credit on capital goods under Rule 4(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The case revolved around a company engaged in the manufacture of Confectionary and Pharmaceutical products. Central Excise officers visited the factory and found that the company had taken Modvat Credit on capital goods installed by M/s. ITC Ltd., which was not a financing company. A show cause notice was issued proposing disallowance of Modvat Credit amounting to Rs. 1,42,78,588/- along with penalties. The company contended that Rule 4(3) allowed credit even if capital goods were acquired from a financing company, not mandating purchase from a financing company. The adjudicating authority rejected the company's contentions, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented by both sides and reviewed the impugned order. It was noted that the ownership of the goods was not a criterion for taking Cenvat Credit on capital goods. However, the Modvat Credit was denied solely because M/s. ITC Ltd. was not classified as a financing company, contravening Rule 4(3) as per the Commissioner's interpretation. The Tribunal then analyzed Rule 4 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, emphasizing that credit for capital goods was available irrespective of the source of acquisition. Sub-rule 4(3) extended the scope of credit to include goods acquired from a financing company but did not restrict credit eligibility to such acquisitions. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner's interpretation, stating that disallowing credit based on the source of acquisition would defeat the legislative intent behind Modvat Credit provisions.

Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted previous decisions where Modvat Credit was allowed on capital goods acquired from suppliers that were not financing companies. The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 4(3) did not necessitate procurement from a financing company but enabled credit even in such cases. By distinguishing the Commissioner's reasoning from established case law, the Tribunal concluded that the company was entitled to the benefit of Modvat Credit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.