2010 (11) TMI 160 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - Inputs - Demand - The applicant is a manufacturer of sponge iron. They have used Ashok Leyland truck for movement of materials within the factory of production - Taken credit of duty paid on the said trucks as capital goods - Show cause notice was issued alleging taking of credit as capital goods was not justified - Held that the decision in the case of Banco Products (India) Ltd. relating to Plastic crates, prima facie, cannot be extended to a truck which is used for moment of goods within the factory - The claim that the truck used in such a situation should be treated as inputs is also, prima facie, not acceptable - Hence, the applicant is directed to deposit the entire amount of duty within four weeks.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether duty credit on trucks used for movement of materials within the factory can be considered as capital goods.
2. Whether penalty imposition on the applicant is justified.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The applicant, a manufacturer of sponge iron, used Ashok Leyland trucks for material movement within the factory and claimed duty credit on the trucks as capital goods. A show cause notice alleged that this credit was not justified, resulting in a duty demand confirmation of Rs. 2,86,945/- and an equal penalty imposition. The advocate for the applicant argued that the trucks were essential for material movement within the factory and should be treated as inputs for sponge iron production. She relied on a Tribunal decision regarding plastic crates as capital goods and inputs. The Tribunal, however, found that the decision on plastic crates could not be extended to trucks used for material movement within the factory. Consequently, the claim that trucks should be treated as inputs was not acceptable. The Tribunal directed the applicant to deposit the duty amount within four weeks and waived the pre-deposit requirement of interest and penalty pending appeal disposal.

Issue 2:
Regarding the penalty imposition, the advocate for the applicant claimed there was no justification for it, and no plea of financial hardship was raised. The SDR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal, after considering the submissions of both sides and the records, did not find the argument for penalty waiver compelling. However, subject to the deposit of the duty amount within the specified timeline, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement of interest and penalty until the appeal's disposal, indicating a temporary relief from additional financial burden while the appeal process continued.