Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2014 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 1 - AT - Central ExciseDemand of interest - Cenvat Credit on capital goods when finished goods exempted later - Interest for the intervening period - Capital Goods cleared later - Held that - when the capital goods were procured by the appellant they were entitled to take credit and product was dutiable. Although the product became duty free on 09.07.2004 but there was no bar for capital goods to reverse the credit on said date and thus capital goods have been cleared on payment of duty. As there is no duty liability on 09.07.2004, the appellants were not required to pay interest for the intervening period - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Whether demand of interest on cleared capital goods is justified due to the final product becoming exempt and cleared later on. Analysis: The appellant appealed against an order confirming the demand of interest by lower authorities for cleared capital goods after the final product became exempt. The appellant had cleared capital goods during a specific period after the product became duty-free as per a notification dated 09.07.2004. The revenue contended that interest was payable for the period until the clearance of these capital goods. The appellant argued that the proviso to the notification applied to inputs, not capital goods, and that the authorities misinterpreted the notification by including capital goods. The appellate tribunal considered the submissions. The tribunal found that when the appellant procured the capital goods, they were entitled to take credit as the product was dutiable at that time. Even though the product became duty-free later, there was no obligation for the capital goods to reverse the credit on that date. Therefore, the capital goods were cleared by paying duty, and as there was no duty liability on the date the product became duty-free, the appellants were not liable to pay interest for the intervening period. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. This judgment clarifies the application of notifications regarding duty exemption on final products and distinguishes between inputs and capital goods for the purpose of interest liability. It emphasizes that the duty status of the final product does not automatically impose interest obligations on cleared capital goods, especially when the credit was legitimately availed during the dutiable period.
|