2013 (12) TMI 759 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of Cenvat credit on paint as input or not as per rule 2 (k) - Paint applied on plant and machinery Eligible for cenvat credit Assessee contended that plant and machinery being fixed towards the earth, are not excisable, the paint would not be eligible for cenvat credit Held that - The paint is specifically covered by definition of input under Rule 2 (k) and there is no condition that its use must be directly by the manufacturer, the cenvat credit on this ground cannot be denied. New grounds raised in the appeal by the revenue Held that - The grounds of appeal in the Revenue s appeal do not mention the point at all that the paint had been cleared as such Revenue s appeal is on a totally on different ground that paint after its application on capital goods i.e. the power plant machinery installed in the factory which is fixed to the earth, would not be eligible for cenvat credit - The plea has to be rejected not only on the ground that the department cannot file appeal on a new ground which was not there at all in the show cause notice, but the same has also to be rejected as an obsurd plea There is no merit in the revenue s Plea and the same is rejected Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of cenvat credit on paint applied to machinery within factory premises.
2. Interpretation of Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Applicability of judgment in the case of Vandana Global Ltd. on cenvat credit eligibility for paint.

Issue 1: Eligibility of Cenvat Credit on Paint:
The respondent took cenvat credit for paint applied to machinery during a project. The Revenue contended that since the paint was applied on non-excisable machinery fixed to the earth, cenvat credit should be denied. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the respondent's position, stating that the paint was used within the factory and met the definition of input under Rule 2(k). The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal raised a new ground not mentioned in the show cause notice, which was rejected. The Tribunal emphasized that the paint, being specifically covered by the definition of 'input,' was eligible for cenvat credit, and the judgment in Vandana Global Ltd. did not apply as it concerned different circumstances. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, deeming it without merit and an absurd appeal authorized without due consideration.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Rule 2(k) of Cenvat Credit Rules:
The dispute centered on whether the paint used on machinery qualified for cenvat credit under Rule 2(k). Both the Original Adjudicating Authority and the First Appellate Authority held that as the paint fell within the definition of 'input' and there was no requirement for direct use by the manufacturer, the cenvat credit could not be denied. The Tribunal reiterated that the paint's application on machinery did not warrant credit denial under Rule 2(k) and emphasized that the definition of 'input' covered the paint's use for protection purposes. The Tribunal's analysis highlighted the importance of adhering to the specific definitions within the Cenvat Credit Rules to determine credit eligibility accurately.

Issue 3: Applicability of Vandana Global Ltd. Judgment:
The Revenue relied on the Vandana Global Ltd. judgment to support its argument against granting cenvat credit for paint applied to machinery. However, the Tribunal clarified that the Vandana Global Ltd. judgment pertained to different scenarios involving materials used for fixed structures, not paint applied for protection purposes on machinery. The Tribunal emphasized that the Vandana Global Ltd. judgment did not extend to denying cenvat credit for paint, which was explicitly covered by the definition of 'input.' This analysis underscored the importance of contextual application of legal precedents to specific factual situations to ensure accurate interpretation and application of the law.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the eligibility of cenvat credit for paint applied to machinery within factory premises, the interpretation of Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, and the applicability of the Vandana Global Ltd. judgment in determining cenvat credit eligibility. The Tribunal's thorough examination and reasoning provide clarity on the legal principles governing cenvat credit claims and the importance of adhering to specific definitions and precedents in resolving such disputes.