2016 (6) TMI 713 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit taken on the disputed goods - demand raised - Held that - As per the unambiguous definition of capital goods contained in Rule 2(a)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the disputed goods shall be considered as input in terms of Rule 2(a) of the said rules for the purpose of the cenvat benefit. As find the goods when used for manufacture of machines installed in the factory shall be eligible for cenvat credit, under the head input. Therefore there is no merit in the impugned order in disallowing the cenvat benefit to the appellant. With regard to the findings that in the year of receipt of the capital goods, the appellant had taken 100% cenvat credit, and thus, the same is not permissible the authorities below have not addressed the issue properly in their respective orders. If the submissions of the Ld. Advocate are to be taken into consideration, then for receipt of the disputed goods in 2005, taking of cenvat credit in 2007 is in conformity with the cenvat statute. However, since this particular aspect has not been properly addressed the matter should be remanded back to the original authority for verification of the duty paid documents for ascertaining the fact regarding date of receipt of the capital goods and taking of cenvat credit.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Disallowance of cenvat credit on disputed goods
- Eligibility of disputed goods as capital goods
- Permissibility of taking 100% cenvat credit in a different financial year

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of cenvat credit on disputed goods
The appeal was against the order upholding the demand confirmed in the adjudication order regarding cenvat credit taken by the appellant on the disputed goods. The Ld. Advocate argued that the disputed goods were used for manufacturing capital goods under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Ld. Advocate relied on various judgments to support the claim that duties paid on the disputed goods are eligible for cenvat benefit. The Tribunal found that the disputed goods were used as inputs for machines confirming to the tariff classification under Chapter 84. The Tribunal held that as per the definition of capital goods in the Cenvat Credit Rules, the disputed goods qualify as inputs for cenvat benefit. The Tribunal agreed with the Ld. Advocate's arguments and allowed the appeal, setting aside the disallowance of cenvat credit on the disputed goods.

Issue 2: Eligibility of disputed goods as capital goods
The Tribunal confirmed that the disputed goods were used as inputs for machines falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, making them eligible as capital goods for cenvat credit. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments supporting the eligibility of goods used for manufacturing machines installed in the factory as inputs for cenvat credit under the category of input. The Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order disallowing cenvat benefit to the appellant and ruled in favor of allowing cenvat credit on the disputed goods.

Issue 3: Permissibility of taking 100% cenvat credit in a different financial year
Regarding the appellant's claim of taking 100% cenvat credit in a different financial year from the receipt of the disputed goods, the Tribunal noted that this aspect was not adequately addressed by the authorities in their orders. The Tribunal opined that if the date of taking cenvat credit is not in the same financial year as the receipt of the capital goods, the credit should be permissible to the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the original authority for verification of duty paid documents to ascertain the facts regarding the date of receipt of capital goods and the taking of cenvat credit. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand for de-novo adjudication on this issue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order disallowing cenvat credit on the disputed goods and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The matter of taking 100% cenvat credit in a different financial year was remanded back to the original authority for further verification and adjudication.