2013 (12) TMI 516 - AT - Central Excise

Capital goods removed after use from the factory Duty liability under Rule 3(5) of Cenvat credit Rules 2004 Held that - When capital goods are removed after use, it cannot be considered as a case of removal of goods as such for the purpose of reversing the entire credit taken at the time of receiving the capital goods as prescribed in Rule 3 (5) of CCR 2004 - The use of capital goods is to spread over many years - A decision to the effect that assessees can bring in capital goods, use it for a few days and then remove it without reversal of any Cenvat credit taken is not consistent with the overall scheme of Cenvat credit and can lead to abuse of the scheme Following CCE Salem Vs Rogini Mills Ltd. 2010 (10) TMI 424 - MADRAS HIGH COURT Decided in favour of Assessee.

Issues:
1. Reference made by a Single Member Bench to a Larger Bench for deciding an issue.
2. Whether the decision of Larger Bench in Modernova Plastyles Pvt. Ltd. addressed the depreciation aspect on capital goods removed after use.
3. Whether the decision of the Division Bench in Geeta Industries Pvt. Ltd. correctly granted the benefit of depreciation and subsequent proportionate reversal of credit.
4. Need for reversal of any part of the credit taken when capital goods are removed after use.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a reference made by a Single Member Bench to a Larger Bench for deciding an issue regarding the removal of capital goods and the payment of duty on transaction value. The dispute arose from the interpretation of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 concerning the payment of an amount equal to the credit availed when capital goods are removed from the factory.

2. The Larger Bench's decision in Modernova Plastyles Pvt. Ltd. did not address the aspect of depreciation to be granted on capital goods removed after use. Hence, the need for further clarification on this issue was raised for consideration by the Larger Bench.

3. The Division Bench's decision in Geeta Industries Pvt. Ltd. was questioned regarding the correct grant of depreciation and subsequent proportionate reversal of credit in the absence of specific provisions. This issue required clarification to ensure consistency and adherence to legal principles.

4. Various High Courts had considered similar cases and provided differing opinions on the need for reversal of credit when capital goods are removed after use. While there was agreement that the full credit taken at the time of receipt need not be reversed, the quantum of credit to be reversed varied among different High Court decisions. The need for uniformity and clarity in determining the amount of credit to be reversed was highlighted.

5. The Tribunal, after examining legal provisions and past decisions, concluded that the reversal of Cenvat credit for used capital goods is essential to prevent abuse of the scheme. Following the decision of the Madras High Court in a similar case, the Tribunal resolved the reference accordingly, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the integrity of the Cenvat credit system.

6. The matter was directed to be placed before the Regular Bench of the Tribunal for the disposal of the appeal in accordance with the decision and clarification provided by the Larger Bench in response to the reference made by the Single Member Bench.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal, the legal interpretations made, and the implications for similar cases involving the reversal of Cenvat credit on capital goods removed after use.

← Previous Next →