2017 (10) TMI 788 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - capital goods - loco and loco parts - Held that - issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the judgments of the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bhusan Steel Ltd. 2012 (10) TMI 306 - CESTAT, KOLKATA , where it was held that the locomotive engines are used usually for pulling the passenger/goods trains that Diesel Locomotive torpedo ladle car carrying molten metal up to 300-350 MT is not only enhances the effectiveness, but without it the handling, and in turn production of finished goods would not be possible. Thus the view of Commr. (A) holding Diesel locomotive as accessory of capital goods is upheld and credit allowed - credit allowed. Penalty on General Manager - availment of irregular credit - Held that - Since the main appeal involving locomotive and parts thereof is allowed , consequently appeal of the General Manager against the penalty is also allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility of CENVAT credit on locomotives and spare parts as capital goods.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in cement and clinker manufacturing, availed CENVAT credit on a 700 HP Diesel Loco and Loco spares. The Department contended that these goods did not qualify as capital goods under Rule 2(a)(A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2004. A show-cause notice was issued, leading to the demand of irregularly availed duty, interest, and imposition of penalties. The Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the decision, prompting the appellant to file appeals. The appellant argued that locomotives were essential accessories for material handling within the factory premises, aiding in the manufacturing process. They cited various judicial decisions supporting their stance, emphasizing the use of locomotives for raw material transportation and handling. The appellant also highlighted the absence of allegations regarding fraud or intent to evade duty in the show-cause notice.

The appellant's counsel contended that the impugned orders misinterpreted the definition of capital goods and were inconsistent with binding judicial precedents. They referenced decisions such as Aditya Cement Vs. CCE, Jaipur-II and CCE, C&ST, BBSR-I Vs. Bhusan Steel Ltd. to support their argument. The Division Bench's ruling in the Bhusan Steel Ltd. case specifically supported the eligibility of CENVAT credit on duty paid for diesel locomotives used in the manufacturing process. Similarly, the Division Bench in the Aditya Cement case recognized dumpers as accessories to capital goods, justifying CENVAT credit eligibility.

After reviewing the submissions and judicial references, the Tribunal found the issue favoring the appellant. Citing the Bhusan Steel Ltd. and Aditya Cement cases, the Tribunal concluded that denying CENVAT credit on locomotives and spare parts was legally unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, overturning the impugned orders and granting consequential reliefs. The judgment also extended to the General Manager's penalty appeal, which was allowed in light of the main appeal's success.

In conclusion, all four appeals were allowed, providing relief to the appellant regarding the eligibility of CENVAT credit on locomotives and spare parts. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of capital goods, supported by relevant judicial precedents, ultimately setting aside the Commissioner(Appeals)'s rulings and penalties imposed.