2018 (3) TMI 491 - AT - Central Excise

100% EOU - Cenvat Credit - denial on the ground that tractors are not capital goods as defined under CCR 2004 since not installed within the factory premises - denial of benefit of notification No.22/2003 - Held that - procurement of raw materials and process for such procurement is integral part of manufacture. That tractors used for transportation of raw materials and also for returning the remnant sand to the beach is part of the manufacturing process and that without such activity, the respondents cannot carryout the manufacturing activity. The definition of capital goods given in CCR, 2004 relates to capital goods on which credit can be availed. In CCE Vs Kejriwal Bee care Ltd. 2011 (1) TMI 422 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI the Tribunal observed that, when the notification does not provide the definition of capital goods, the same has to be construed as used in common parlance. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of exemption and recovery of duty on tractors procured under notification No.22/2003.
2. Classification of tractors as capital goods under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.
3. Interpretation of the term "capital goods" in the context of exemption notification for 100% EOUs.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a situation where a show cause notice (SCN) was issued to the respondents proposing to deny exemption and recover duty on tractors procured under notification No.22/2003, alleging that tractors did not qualify as capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The original authority confirmed the demand, interest, and penalties, but the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondents. The Revenue contended that tractors used for transportation of raw materials did not meet the conditions of the notification, as capital goods had to be installed and used within the user industry. However, the respondents argued that tractors were essential for their manufacturing process as they were used to transport sand for manufacturing activities. The Tribunal found that the tractors were integral to the manufacturing process and upheld the Commissioner's decision, dismissing the appeal.

2. The Revenue argued that tractors could not be considered capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as they were not included in the definition of capital goods. The respondents, on the other hand, maintained that the definition of capital goods in the CCR, 2004 was specific to availing credit and should not be used to interpret the notification for exemption. The Tribunal cited a previous case where it was held that in the absence of a specific definition in the notification, the term "capital goods" should be understood in common parlance. Based on this reasoning, the Tribunal concluded that the tractors qualified as capital goods within the context of the exemption notification, supporting the respondents' position.

3. The interpretation of the term "capital goods" in the context of the exemption notification for 100% EOUs was crucial in this case. The Tribunal emphasized that the definition of capital goods in the CCR, 2004 was not directly applicable to the exemption notification and should be understood in common parlance. Referring to a previous case involving a similar issue, the Tribunal highlighted that items essential for specific manufacturing processes could be considered capital goods for the purpose of exemption notifications. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the tractors used by the respondents for transporting raw materials were indeed eligible for exemption as capital goods, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal brought by the Revenue.