2008 (10) TMI 225 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat / Modvat Credit on Capital goods - the machinery procured by the appellant is of a type requiring higher power. Consequently the appellants had to obtain a dedicated feeder line of 1000 KVA which is different from the 400 KVA which they have used prior to the installation of the said machinery held that - When the appellant had to invest huge sums on cables for establishment of a feeder line definitely these cables are used in connection with the manufacture of final products in the factory - In view of the nature of these goods they can definitely be considered as capital goods

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of Cenvat credit on the purchase of electric cables for establishing a dedicated feeder line for higher power requirement.
- Interpretation of the definition of capital goods under Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
- Applicability of penalty under Section 11AC for contravention of Cenvat credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis:
1. Availment of Cenvat credit on electric cables: The appellant purchased machinery requiring higher power and installed a dedicated feeder line of 1000 KVA, different from the previous 400 KVA. The cables were used to connect the power source to the factory for manufacturing final products. The Tribunal found that the cables were indeed used in connection with the manufacturing process, qualifying as capital goods. The Tribunal relied on precedents where Cenvat credit was allowed for similar items like pipe lines, supporting the appellant's claim for credit on the cables.

2. Interpretation of capital goods definition: The dispute centered on whether the electric cables used outside the factory premises could be considered capital goods under Rule 2 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal noted that the machinery necessitated a separate feeder line, and the cables were essential for this purpose. Considering the integral role of the cables in the manufacturing process, they were deemed eligible for Cenvat credit as capital goods, aligning with precedents supporting such interpretations.

3. Applicability of penalty under Section 11AC: The Revenue argued for the imposition of a penalty under Section 11AC due to alleged contravention of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing that the issue primarily involved the interpretation of the law regarding the eligibility of the cables for Cenvat credit. As the matter was a legal interpretation dispute rather than willful non-compliance, the Tribunal found no justification for imposing a penalty under Section 11AC. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, providing the appellant with the necessary relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the Cenvat credit on the electric cables used for establishing a dedicated feeder line to meet the increased power requirements for manufacturing. The decision was based on the essential role of the cables in the manufacturing process, aligning with precedents and the interpretation of capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal also rejected the imposition of a penalty under Section 11AC, emphasizing the issue's nature as a legal interpretation matter rather than deliberate non-compliance.