2013 (10) TMI 327 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit Waiver of Pre-deposit - Revenue was of the view that the equipment s and machineries were erected in the factory and thus became immovable property and, therefore, cannot be considered as capital goods and they proposed to deny CENVAT credit taken on such goods brought into the factory Held that - In the history of MODVAT/CENVAT scheme for duty paid on capital goods credit has not been denied for the reason that machineries brought into the factory on payment of duty were erected before it was put in use in the manufacturing processes - Machineries are erected to make it do the manufacturing process - Credit cannot be denied for the reason that machinery became immovable after erection - The dispute relating support structures built as immovable property in a factory are on a different footing about which there have been many disputes - Since this case is about credit on equipments and machineries the applicant has a very strong prima facie case in their favour and calling for any pre-deposit will tilt the balance of convenience against the applicant Pre-deposit was waived Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of CENVAT credit on equipments and machineries due to them being considered immovable property after erection.

Analysis:
The case involved a manufacturer of paper who had taken CENVAT credit on certain equipments and machineries for expanding their plant. The Revenue contended that the items became immovable property upon erection in the factory, thus disqualifying them as capital goods for CENVAT credit. Two Show Cause Notices were issued, resulting in confirmed amounts against the applicant along with interest and penalties. The applicant filed appeals seeking waiver of pre-deposit for admission of the appeal.

The applicant argued that the credits were taken only on equipments and machinery used for expansion projects, without any credit on supporting structures. They referred to a specific list of machineries and cited previous Tribunal decisions where stays were granted in similar cases. The Revenue, however, opposed the prayer, stating that CENVAT credit was denied when items became immovable property during erection.

The Tribunal considered both arguments and noted that historically, credit on capital goods had not been denied for machineries brought into the factory, even if they became immovable after erection. The Tribunal emphasized that machineries are erected to facilitate the manufacturing process, and denial of credit based on immovability post-erection was unwarranted. Since the case focused on equipments and machineries, the Tribunal found a strong prima facie case in favor of the applicant. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit of the entire amount for admission of the appeal and stayed the collection during the appeal's pendency.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the distinction between machineries used for manufacturing processes and support structures as immovable property. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the purpose and usage of equipments and machineries in determining eligibility for CENVAT credit, ultimately ruling in favor of the applicant and granting the requested waiver and stay.