2015 (6) TMI 910 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT Credit - whether the appellant is eligible for Cenvat credit of duty paid on Air-conditioner and furniture - Held that - air-conditioner has been used within the factory in the control panel room to keep the temperature down. There is no dispute that it has been installed in the factory. As regards furniture, the learned counsel relied upon the Board s circular issued by the Board vide Circular No. 943/4/2011-CX. dated 29.04.2011. In the circular it was mentioned that goods such as furniture and stationery used in an office within the factory are goods used in the factory and are used in relation to the manufacturing business and hence the credit of same is allowed. This circular was issued after the amendment of Cenvat Credit Rules specifically denying benefit of Cenvat credit on certain activities which are not at all related to manufacture. - According to the definition of input as it existed during the relevant period, inputs used in the factory for any other purpose the credit is admissible. In this case there is no denial of the fact that furniture had been used within the factory. - Decided in favor of Assessee.

Summary

Issues: Eligibility of Cenvat credit on duty paid for Air-conditioner and furniture.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing MS Angles and Ingots, sought Cenvat credit for duty paid on Air-conditioner and furniture. The main issue was whether the appellant was eligible for such credit. The Tribunal examined the usage of the air-conditioner within the factory, noting its installation in the control panel room to regulate temperature. It was undisputed that the air-conditioner was utilized within the factory premises. Regarding the furniture, the appellant's counsel referenced a Board circular emphasizing that furniture used in an office within the factory premises for manufacturing business purposes qualifies for Cenvat credit. The circular was issued post-amendment of Cenvat Credit Rules, which restricted credit for activities unrelated to manufacturing. The dispute pertained to the period of April 2007. The definition of 'input' during that period allowed credit for inputs used in the factory "for any other purpose." Since the furniture was used within the factory, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the Cenvat credit. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, affirming the eligibility of the appellant for the benefit of Cenvat credit on the duty paid for the air-conditioner and furniture.