2011 (7) TMI 350 - AT - Central Excise

Interest - Cenvat credit - Capital goods - The original adjudicating authority confirmed this demand though it was argued by the appellants as they considered the disputed goods as the inputs - Subsequently the Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty and cenvat credit - However he held that they are liable to pay interest on the cenvat credit taken in excess to 50% of the admissible credit during each financial year - Appellant contended by them that the interest was not computed while passing the Order-in-Appeal - Revenue submitted that he has no objection in acceding to the request of the appellant - Accordingly allow the appeal - The Revenue may quantify the interest due and the appellant will make the payment of the quantified amount.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods as inputs or capital goods for availing cenvat credit.
2. Liability to pay interest on cenvat credit taken in excess.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of goods as inputs or capital goods for availing cenvat credit
The case involved M/s. Guardian Plasticote Ltd. availing cenvat credit on Engraved Copper Plated Roller/Cylinder as inputs. The department argued that these goods were used as parts/components of a printing machine by the job worker and should be considered capital goods. The original adjudicating authority upheld this view, leading to a demand of Rs.22,80,720/- as cenvat credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty and cenvat credit but held the appellants liable to pay interest on the excess cenvat credit taken. The appellants contended that the disputed goods should be considered inputs, not capital goods.

Issue 2: Liability to pay interest on cenvat credit taken in excess
The Commissioner's decision required the appellants to pay interest on the cenvat credit taken in excess of 50% of the admissible credit during each financial year. The appellant accepted the Order-in-Appeal but raised concerns about the interest computation. The Tribunal noted the appellant's intention to approach the department for quantification of interest and payment thereafter. The Revenue, represented by Shri R. Nagar, did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Revenue to quantify the interest due for payment by the appellant, thereby disposing of the stay petition as well.

This judgment clarifies the classification of goods for cenvat credit purposes and addresses the liability to pay interest on excess credit. The decision underscores the importance of proper classification of goods as inputs or capital goods and the obligation to pay interest on any excess credit claimed.