2017 (3) TMI 11 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - denial on the ground that the machine was received in damaged condition and insurance was claimed - Held that - The ownership is not the criteria for allowing the credit on capital goods. The only criteria is that the capital goods should be installed in the factory of the assessee and used in the manufacture of final product which is not in dispute in the present case - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of cenvat credit on damaged imported capital goods due to insurance claim and subsequent repurchase.

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case:
- The appellant imported capital goods which got damaged in transit but were received in the factory. An insurance claim was made, excluding the CVD paid on the goods. The appellant later proposed to redeem the capital goods from the insurance company for ?12 lakhs. The cenvat credit of CVD was taken by the appellant, leading to a show-cause notice for denial of credit.

2. Appellant's Argument:
- The appellant's counsel argued that despite the temporary transfer of ownership to the insurance company, the damaged machine was used in the factory after repair, justifying the cenvat credit claim. Citing precedents like Mahadev Industries and Modernova Plastyles, the appellant contended that the continuous use of the goods in the factory warranted the credit.

3. Revenue's Position:
- The revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, maintained that ownership of the goods was pivotal for credit eligibility. Highlighting the repurchase of the machine for ?12 lakhs from the insurance company against a higher claim, the revenue argued against allowing the credit. Reference was made to the case of CCE vs. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. to support the position.

4. Judgment and Analysis:
- The tribunal noted that the ownership issue was central to the dispute, with the revenue contending that the credit was inadmissible post-insurance claim. However, the tribunal found that the capital goods were used in the appellant's factory even during the period of ownership transfer. Emphasizing that the goods were installed and utilized by the appellant, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. The tribunal distinguished the case from Associated Cement Co. Ltd. based on the usage and ownership context.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, legal precedents cited, and the tribunal's reasoning leading to the decision in favor of the appellant regarding the cenvat credit on damaged capital goods.