2017 (3) TMI 645 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - eligible inputs - drawings and designs imported from Germany for setting up the plant - Held that - drawings do not fall within the definition of inputs in as much as they are not goods used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products directly or indirectly. They can also not be considered as components, spares and accessories of capital goods. These drawings have been used in setting up of the cement plant which in turn consist of various capital goods such as calciner, cooler blender etc. The drawings cannot be considered as part of any of these capital goods. In fact, the complete cement plant which has been erected making use of these designs and drawings did not remain as excisable goods any more in as much as all these capital goods have been embedded to earth on foundation making up the entire cement plant. The property of designs and drawings are intangible and do not fall within the description of either inputs or capital goods - credit not allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute regarding Cenvat Credit availed on imported drawings and designs used in cement plant expansion.

Analysis:
The appellant, a cement manufacturer, imported drawings and designs for the expansion of their plant, availing Cenvat Credit of &8377; 87,91,289. The dispute arose when the Revenue contended that the credit availed was improper, leading to a show cause notice and subsequent order disallowing the credit with interest and penalty. The appellant argued that the drawings and designs were essential inputs used in the erection, commissioning, operation, and maintenance of the cement plant, falling under the definition of inputs for Cenvat Credit. The appellant also raised the issue of limitation. The Counsel cited various legal precedents to support their argument, emphasizing the relevance of the imported drawings and designs in the manufacturing process.

The definition of "input" under Rule 2(K) of the Cenvat Credit Rules was crucial in determining the eligibility of the imported drawings and designs for credit. The drawings, classified under customs Tariff Heading 4906, were paid for as technical know-how rather than physical goods, making them intangible property. These drawings were utilized for designing civil foundations and installing various machinery in the cement plant, indicating their direct role in the manufacturing process. However, the Commissioner, in the impugned order, reasoned that the drawings did not qualify as goods used directly or indirectly in the manufacture of final products or as components, spares, or accessories of capital goods. The Commissioner highlighted that the cement plant, constructed using these designs, became immovable property and did not retain its excisable goods status.

The Commissioner's detailed analysis concluded that the drawings and designs, despite being integral to the plant's setup, did not meet the criteria of inputs or capital goods as per the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Commissioner's decision was supported by the absence of direct applicability of cited case laws to the current scenario. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's findings, upholding the impugned order and dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between physical goods and intangible property in the context of Cenvat Credit eligibility, ultimately affirming the disallowance of credit on the imported drawings and designs.

In conclusion, the judgment delved into the interpretation of the Cenvat Credit Rules, the nature of the imported drawings and designs, and their role in the cement manufacturing process. The decision underscored the importance of tangible goods as inputs for availing Cenvat Credit, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the specific circumstances and legal framework governing the case.