9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 662 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - credit in respect of plastic crates, trolleys, welding table and welding chair - denial of CENVAT credit on the ground that the material on which credit was availed are neither inputs nor capital goods - Held that - On going through the photographs produced by the learned counsel it is observed that all the items i.e. plastic crates is used for handling of the material, such as semi-finished goods in the factory of the appellant. The movement of semi-finished goods during the process of manufacturing is part of the manufacturing process of the final products of the appellant. The judgment of the larger bench of this Tribunal in Banco Products (India) Ltd. (2009 (2) TMI 101 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD) is squarely applicable in respect of CENVAT credit on the plastic crates. - trolley is specially designed to keep the machine parts which is used in the manufacture of their final products. The trolley is used as a material handling equipment within the factory during the process of manufacturing. The issue of eligibility to CENVAT credit on trolley has been dealt by the Tribunal in the case of Shinhan Plasto (I) Pvt. Ltd. (2008 (2) TMI 157 - CESTAT, CHENNAI) - trolley is used in or in relation to the manufacturing process of final products. Therefore, in my considered view, CENVAT credit on trolley is rightly available. - CENVAT credit in respect of welding table and welding chair, in my considered view, is rightly admissible. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal confirming demand of CENVAT credit and reducing penalty under Section 11AC. 2. Eligibility of CENVAT credit on plastic crates, trolleys, welding table, and welding chair. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal confirming a demand for CENVAT credit of Rs. 2,66,025, with a penalty under Section 11AC reduced to Rs. 1,62,962. The appellant availed credit for various items, leading to a show cause notice proposing credit denial. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand but reduced the penalty due to the appellant's actions. The appellant contested for CENVAT credit of Rs. 1,62,962 on specific items used in manufacturing. 2. The appellant's counsel argued that the items in question were directly or indirectly used in manufacturing final products, presenting evidence through photographs. The plastic crates were used for handling semi-finished goods, trolleys for machine parts, and welding chair for the welding process. The counsel relied on judgments emphasizing the essential role of such items in the manufacturing process. 3. The Revenue contended that the items were not directly used in manufacturing and cited a judgment to support their position. However, the Tribunal analyzed the evidence presented, noting that plastic crates facilitated the manufacturing process by handling goods efficiently. Citing a relevant judgment, the Tribunal ruled in favor of allowing CENVAT credit on plastic crates. 4. Regarding trolleys, the Tribunal observed their specific design for holding machine parts used in manufacturing, aligning with a previous judgment's interpretation. Consequently, the Tribunal found the trolleys eligible for CENVAT credit based on their integral role in the manufacturing process. 5. The Tribunal recognized the welding table and chair as crucial for the welding process, an essential part of manufacturing final products. Referring to a precedent, the Tribunal concluded that these items were indirectly used in the manufacturing process, justifying the allowance of CENVAT credit. 6. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's entitlement to CENVAT credit on plastic crates, trolleys, welding table, and welding chair. The impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief as per the law.
|
