2009 (2) TMI 191 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat Credit on Capital goods Apex court held that cutting of marble blocks into slabs did not amount to manufacture - Subsequent to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, the appellant stopped paying excise duty on the marble slabs. However, they had taken balance of 50% of the credit on the capital goods amounting of Rs. 4,22,802/- on 10-7-2004 and utilized the same towards payment of duty on other dutiable products cleared by them held that - The decision holding that conversion of marble block to marble slab did not amount to manufacture laid down the law not only from 18-9-2003 but that was the law for the period prior to 18-9-2003. In other words, the levy of duty on marble slabs arising out of marble block was not legal. Similarly, the credit taken on the capital goods used in conversion of marble block to marble slab is also not legal. Under these circumstances, there is no right vested on the appellant to take credit of duty paid on the impugned capital goods recovery confirmed.

Issues:
1. Eligibility of credit on capital goods received during the period when the appellant was paying duty but later stopped due to a Supreme Court decision.
2. Validity of taking 50% cenvat credit on capital goods in July 2004 after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. Interpretation of the law regarding the right to take credit on capital goods in the context of duty payment on manufactured goods.

Issue 1 - Eligibility of credit on capital goods:
The appellant, engaged in processing marble blocks into slabs, received capital goods during the period when duty was being paid. However, after a Supreme Court judgment stating that cutting marble blocks into slabs did not amount to manufacture, the appellant stopped paying excise duty on the marble slabs. The original authority allowed the appellant to take 50% cenvat credit on the capital goods received during the dutiable period. The Commissioner (Appeals) later held this credit as irregular and ordered recovery. The appellant argued that the right to credit accrued when the goods were dutiable, regardless of the subsequent change in their excisability. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court decision invalidated the levy of duty on marble slabs even for the period before the judgment, making the credit on capital goods used for slab conversion not legal.

Issue 2 - Validity of 50% cenvat credit taken in July 2004:
The appellant contended that since they were manufacturing other dutiable products like tiles, the balance credit taken in July 2004 and utilized should be considered legal. The Tribunal, however, emphasized that the credit eligibility conditions must be met at the time of receiving the capital goods, regardless of subsequent developments. The Tribunal differentiated this case from a previous decision where goods turned exempt post-receipt, stating that the change in excisability of marble slabs post-Supreme Court judgment did not justify the appellant's credit claim.

Issue 3 - Interpretation of the law on credit eligibility:
The Tribunal analyzed the law regarding credit on capital goods used in manufacturing dutiable products. It highlighted that the credit eligibility is determined at the time of receiving the goods, and subsequent changes in the excisability of manufactured goods do not impact this eligibility. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the right to credit arose during the dutiable period, emphasizing that the Supreme Court's judgment rendered the duty payment on marble slabs legally invalid even for the prior period. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, rejecting the appellant's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed that the appellant was not entitled to the credit on capital goods received during the dutiable period, as the subsequent Supreme Court judgment invalidated the duty payment on marble slabs, making the credit claim illegal. The decision underscores the importance of assessing credit eligibility based on the conditions prevailing at the time of receiving the capital goods, irrespective of any later changes in the excisability of manufactured goods.

← Previous Next →