2015 (10) TMI 1222 - AT - Central Excise

Reversal of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Job work - Held that - These units exclusively carry out the job work only for the appellants. The Rule 4 (5) (a) of CCR provides for supply of capital goods for job work for manufacture of intermediate goods with the condition that it should be returned within 180 days failing which appellants have to pay equivalent amount of credit availed on the capital goods. It is seen from the worksheet submitted by the appellants, out of 13 machines, 5 machines listed at Sl.No.6,7,8,9 & 13 were returned and subsequently cleared to new plant on payment of duty and remaining 8 were installed in Unit II (5 nos.) and Shop-II (3 nos.) of the appellant. I find from letter dt.1.2.2011 addressed to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai IV wherein they have requested for inclusion of the premises of Shop-II with the appellants main unit which is still pending .Prima facie, I find that the main unit and the two units belong to the appellant and exclusively used for carrying out job work only for them. - capital goods credit which are installed in the captive mines are eligible for the entire capital goods credit even though they are located outside the factory. In the present case, there is no dispute that these two units belong to them and exclusively doing the job wok for main unit and they are not independent job workers. Therefore, by respectfully following above Apex Court decision and considering the fact that there was no recovery mechanisms built in CCR for recovery of capital goods credit prior to 1.3.2013, I hold that appellants are eligible for capital goods credit installed at their own units for job work purpose. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of availing capital goods credit for machines installed in own units for job work.
2. Compliance with Rule 4 (5) (a) of CCR for removal of capital goods.
3. Interpretation of premises related to job work units.
4. Applicability of recovery mechanisms for capital goods credit prior to 1.3.2013.

Eligibility of availing capital goods credit for machines installed in own units for job work:
The appellant appealed against an Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) demanding the amount of ineligible credit availed on capital goods installed in their units for job work. The appellant argued that they are entitled to avail capital goods credit as long as the goods are returned within 180 days, and that Shop-II and Unit-II should be considered part of the main unit for this purpose. They contended that since they paid duty on some machines subsequently cleared to a new plant, no further duty should be demanded. The Tribunal found that the units exclusively carried out job work for the appellant, and based on precedent, held that the appellant was eligible for capital goods credit as there was no recovery mechanism for such credit before 1.3.2013.

Compliance with Rule 4 (5) (a) of CCR for removal of capital goods:
The respondent argued that the appellant did not follow the procedure under Rule 4 (5) (a) of CCR for removal of capital goods and failed to file any declaration. The Director of the company admitted liability. However, the Tribunal focused on the specific issue of reversal of cenvat credit for capital goods not returned within the stipulated period, rather than procedural compliance for removal of goods.

Interpretation of premises related to job work units:
The Tribunal analyzed the location of Shop-II and Unit-II in relation to the main unit, emphasizing that these units were exclusively used for job work for the appellant. It was noted that the main unit and the two job work units belonged to the appellant and were not independent job workers. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court decision to support the conclusion that the appellant was eligible for capital goods credit based on the nature of the job work units.

Applicability of recovery mechanisms for capital goods credit prior to 1.3.2013:
The Tribunal considered the absence of recovery mechanisms for capital goods credit before 1.3.2013 in its decision to allow the appeal. It highlighted that since there was no provision for recovery of such credit during the period in question (Feb95 to March09), the appellant should be eligible for the credit on capital goods installed in their units for job work. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the lack of a recovery mechanism in the relevant rules during the specified timeframe.