2017 (11) TMI 337 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - capital goods - duty paying documents - Held that - The only thing disputed is the appellants have failed to provide the transport document on the said machine from Koregaon to the appellants premises. It is seen that the appellants have now submitted an undertaking of transporter dated 19.05.2015. In these circumstances it can be reasonably said that the grounds of rejection in the impugned order did not survive - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
Denial of cenvat credit on capital goods.

Analysis:
The appellants, M/s. APPL Industries Ltd., appealed against the denial of cenvat credit on capital goods. The counsel for the appellants highlighted that this was the second round of litigation, with the matter being remanded by the Tribunal previously. The demand show-cause notice was issued to the appellants for the reversal of cenvat credit on certain machinery procured by them. The denial of credit was based on the grounds that the documents supporting the credit were addressed to different locations. However, the appellants argued that the machinery was received in their factory, used in manufacturing excisable goods, and supported by various documents including an affidavit, chartered engineer's certificate, and director's declaration. The Commissioner examined 17 items in the remand proceedings, with the appellants accepting liability for 15 items. The cenvat credit was allowed for an injection moulding machine but denied for an underwater palletising system due to lack of transport documents. The appellants provided various documents to support their claim, similar to those accepted for the injection moulding machine. The Tribunal found that the grounds for rejection in the impugned order did not hold as the underwater palletising system was installed in the factory, and the machine import was not disputed. The only contention was the lack of transport documents, which the appellants later submitted. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the denial of cenvat credit was overturned.

This judgment revolves around the denial of cenvat credit on capital goods by the appellants, M/s. APPL Industries Ltd. The case involved a detailed examination of the documents supporting the credit, the location of machinery receipt, and the subsequent use in manufacturing excisable goods. The Tribunal considered the previous remand, where the appellants were directed to provide necessary documents. The Commissioner examined specific items, with the appellants accepting liability for most but contesting the denial of credit for an underwater palletising system. The denial was primarily due to the absence of transport documents from the sister unit to the appellants' premises. The appellants argued that they had submitted various supporting documents similar to those accepted for another machine, the injection moulding machine. The Tribunal found that the grounds for rejection did not stand as the machine was installed in the factory, and the import was undisputed. The appellants later provided the transport document, leading to the allowance of the appeal and overturning of the denial of cenvat credit.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of providing comprehensive documentation to support cenvat credit claims on capital goods. It underscores the significance of establishing the receipt and utilization of machinery in the manufacturing process through various certificates, affidavits, and transport documents. The case exemplifies the procedural aspects involved in challenging denial orders, the role of tribunals in reviewing such decisions, and the impact of submitting additional evidence to support the original claim. Ultimately, the decision to allow the appeal emphasizes the need for thorough documentation and compliance with cenvat credit regulations to substantiate claims successfully.

← Previous Next →