2015 (9) TMI 1020 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Wrongful availment of CENVAT Credit - availing credit while availing exemption - whether the goods namely lubricating oils, grease, articles of plastics (bobbins and plastic crates) etc. fall within the definition of capital goods or not - Held that - As regards credit on lubricating oils and grease is concerned the appellants have contested that they are covered by the definition of capital goods, as held by the decision in the case of Vipras Castings Ltd. v. CCE - 2005 (1) TMI 470 - CESTAT, MUMBAI . I have gone through the said judgment and I find that the same was passed in reference to the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 to allow Cenvat credit consequent to the amendment in Rule 57 to include lubricating oil/grease under the definition of Capital goods - Once, the goods in question were specifically covered under the definition of inputs it was not open to the appellants to seek credit of the same under capital goods. The obvious reason for their doing so was that the appellants were working under Notification No. 30/2004-C.E., dated 9-7-2004 and clearing their finished goods without payment of duties of excise, and therefore, they were not entitled to take credit of the duty paid on inputs, in terms of the notification ibid. I also observe that there is no claim of the appellants that they were eligible for the credit on the said goods as inputs. Hence, I hold that Cenvat credit on lubricating oil/grease was not admissible to the appellants and the same has been rightly denied by the adjudicating authority. As per definition of capital goods as provided under Rule 2(a)(A)(1) of the Credit Rules, credit is admissible on capital goods specified therein, which are used in the factory of the manufacturer of the final products, but does not include any equipment or appliance used in an office. The only exclusion for eligibility of credit as provided under Rule 6(4) of the Credit Rules is that the capital goods should not have been used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods or in providing exempted services, other than the finals products which are exempt from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon under any notification where exemption is granted based upon the value or quantity of clearances made in a financial year. - appellants are eligible to Cenvat credit on plastic crates, bobbins under capital goods. Appellants plea that no mens rea to avail inadmissible credit was present in their case, is devoid of merits and accordingly, penalty imposed under Rule 15(3) of the Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Act, is upheld. However, the penalty would be restricted to the amount of demand arrived at after re-quantification of the demand by the jurisdictional Deputy/Assistant Commissioner. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Single registration for two units.
2. Admissibility of Cenvat credit on lubricating oils, grease, and plastic articles as capital goods.
3. Proper address on invoices.
4. Application of extended period of limitation.
5. Imposition of penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Single Registration for Two Units:
The appellants argued that both units, despite being in different locations, held the same Central Excise Registration No. and were under the same Range and Division. The CBEC's Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions, 2005, allows a single registration for premises manufacturing goods under specified chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, if they fall within the jurisdiction of one Commissioner. The judgment concluded that the appellants correctly obtained a single registration for both units. Consequently, Cenvat credit was admissible for invoices issued to either unit, provided the premises were listed in the registration certificate.

2. Admissibility of Cenvat Credit:
Lubricating Oils and Grease: The appellants claimed these as capital goods based on previous rulings. However, under the Credit Rules during the relevant period, these items were classified as inputs. The judgment held that since the goods were explicitly covered under the definition of inputs, the appellants could not claim them as capital goods. The jurisdictional Deputy/Assistant Commissioner was directed to re-compute the demand for these items.

Plastic Bobbins and Crates: These items were used to handle raw materials and finished goods. The judgment referenced case laws that classified such items as accessories to machinery, thus qualifying them as capital goods. The judgment concluded that both plastic crates and bobbins were eligible for Cenvat credit as capital goods.

3. Proper Address on Invoices:
The audit alleged that the invoices did not bear the proper address of the units. The judgment found that as long as the invoices were issued in the name of either of the registered units, the credit was admissible. The interchange of addresses did not affect the eligibility for credit.

4. Application of Extended Period of Limitation:
The appellants contended that the show cause notices were issued without invoking the extended period of limitation. The judgment noted that the notices alleged suppression of facts regarding the credit taken on inputs as capital goods. Although not explicitly mentioned in the charging section, the extended period was deemed invoked, rendering the notices valid.

5. Imposition of Penalty:
The judgment upheld the penalty under Rule 15(3) of the Credit Rules read with Section 11AC of the Act, citing deliberate availing of inadmissible credit on lubricating oils and grease. The penalty was to be re-computed based on the revised demand.

Conclusion:
- Appeals Partially Allowed: The judgment allowed the appeals concerning the classification of plastic bobbins and crates as capital goods, thus eligible for Cenvat credit.
- Re-computation of Demand and Penalty: The jurisdictional Deputy/Assistant Commissioner was instructed to re-compute the demand for lubricating oils and grease and the corresponding penalty within 15 days.
- Stay Applications Disposed Of: The stay applications were disposed of in line with the judgment's findings.

The judgment provided a detailed analysis of each issue, maintaining the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original text.