2013 (10) TMI 328 - AT - Central Excise

Eligibility of Availment CENVAT Credit on Capital Goods - Revenue was of the view that the appellant to be denied of the CENVAT credit availed on capital goods Held that - Following Spenta International Ltd. vs. CCE, Thane 2007 (8) TMI 25 - CESTAT, MUMBAI - CENVAT credit eligibility is to be determined with reference to the dutiability of the final product on the date of receipt of capital goods - Both sides have not brought to our notice any contrary view expressed by any higher forum. The first appellate authority has also imposed penalties on the appellant - since the issue involved in this case was referred to Larger Bench and decided by the Larger Bench, there cannot be any reason for visiting the appellants with the penalty - As the issue was of interpretation, we are of the view that penalty imposed on the appellant by the first appellate authority is unwarranted and needs to be set aside - the confirmation of the demand of the ineligibility of CENVAT credit is upheld along with interest but penalty imposed by the first appellate authority are set aside Decided partly in favor of Assesse.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility of CENVAT credit on capital goods used for manufacturing exempted products before becoming dutiable.
- Interpretation of CBEC circular No.345/2/2000-TRU.
- Applicability of the Larger Bench decision in Spenta International Ltd. case.
- Imposition of penalties by the first appellate authority.

Eligibility of CENVAT Credit on Capital Goods:
The case revolved around the eligibility of the appellant to avail CENVAT credit on capital goods used for manufacturing exempted products before becoming dutiable. The appellant had received the capital goods between 1999-2002, and the final products became dutiable from March 2003. The Revenue authorities sought to reverse the CENVAT credit availed by the appellant. The first appellate authority allowed the Revenue's appeal, denying the appellant the CENVAT credit. The appellant argued that they were eligible for the credit based on CBEC circular No.345/2/2000-TRU, which allowed for subsequent availment of MODVAT credit. However, the Tribunal, in line with the Larger Bench decision in Spenta International Ltd. case, held that CENVAT credit eligibility is determined based on the dutiability of the final product at the time of receiving the capital goods. The appeals filed by the appellant were found to lack merit, and the denial of CENVAT credit was upheld.

Interpretation of CBEC Circular and Larger Bench Decision:
The appellant relied on CBEC circular No.345/2/2000-TRU to support their claim for CENVAT credit. However, the Tribunal considered the Larger Bench decision in the Spenta International Ltd. case, which clarified that CENVAT credit eligibility is linked to the dutiability of the final product at the time of receiving the capital goods. The Tribunal found no contrary view from a higher forum and upheld the denial of CENVAT credit based on this interpretation.

Imposition of Penalties:
The first appellate authority had imposed penalties on the appellant, which the Tribunal deemed unwarranted. Since the issue of CENVAT credit eligibility was referred to and decided by the Larger Bench, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for penalizing the appellant. The penalties imposed by the first appellate authority were set aside, considering the issue as a matter of interpretation. The confirmation of the demand for ineligibility of CENVAT credit and the associated interest were upheld, but the penalties were removed.

In conclusion, the appeals were disposed of with the denial of CENVAT credit upheld, penalties imposed by the first appellate authority set aside, and the decision based on the interpretation of the dutiability of final products at the time of receiving capital goods.