9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 1488 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods - welding electrodes - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case credit of excise duty paid on welding electrodes is eligible to be taken as inputs and/or capital goods, under the Cenvat Rules in respect of its use in repair and maintenance of capital goods and also installation of new machines used in the factory for manufacture of excisable final products? Held that - it will be necessary to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Limited vs. Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur 1964 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA which is by a Bench of three Hon ble Judges - it was held in the case that We are not prepared to agree with the High Court that in order that electrical equipment should fall within the terms of Rule 13, it must be an ingredient to the finished goods to be prepared, or it must be a commodity which is used in the creation of goods. Merely because one issue is referred to the Larger Bench in the case of Ramala Sahakari Limited 2010 (11) TMI 34 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , it cannot be said that the law which prevails today should not be followed. The Appellate Tribunal has not denied relief to the appellant on the ground that the definition of inputs is restricted only six categories mentioned therein. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of Cenvat credit on welding electrodes as inputs or capital goods. 2. Availability of Cenvat credit for welding electrodes used in the installation of capital goods. 3. Imposition of penalty under the Cenvat Rules. 4. Requirement of mens rea for imposing penalty under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Rules. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of Cenvat Credit on Welding Electrodes as Inputs or Capital Goods: The primary issue was whether the excise duty paid on welding electrodes used for repair and maintenance of capital goods and installation of new machines in the factory could be taken as inputs or capital goods under the Cenvat Rules. The appellant argued that welding electrodes are integral to the manufacturing process, used for fixing machinery and maintenance, and thus should qualify for Cenvat credit. The Appellate Tribunal, however, relied on its Larger Bench decision in Jaypee Rewa Plant v. CCE, Raipur, which held that welding electrodes used for repairs and maintenance are not used coextensively with the manufacturing process and thus do not qualify for Cenvat credit. The High Court, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Limited, found that the Appellate Tribunal's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law. The Court emphasized that processes integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods should be considered part of the manufacturing process, and thus welding electrodes used in repairs and maintenance could qualify for Cenvat credit. 2. Availability of Cenvat Credit for Welding Electrodes Used in Installation of Capital Goods: Similar to the first issue, the question was whether welding electrodes used in the installation of capital goods qualify for Cenvat credit. The appellant maintained that these electrodes are essential for the installation and fixing of machinery, making them eligible for credit. However, the Appellate Tribunal, following the Jaypee Rewa Plant decision, denied the credit. The High Court disagreed, stating that the Appellate Tribunal failed to consider whether the electrodes were used directly or indirectly in the manufacture of final products or in relation to their manufacture. The Court remanded the case to the Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to apply the correct legal standard. 3. Imposition of Penalty under the Cenvat Rules: The appellant contended that no penalty should be imposed as there was no deliberate violation of the Cenvat Rules. The Assistant Commissioner had imposed a penalty under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, which was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. The High Court noted that the Appellate Tribunal reduced the penalty from ?78,000 to ?20,000 but did not provide a detailed analysis of whether the penalty was justified. The Court's remand order implied the need for the Appellate Tribunal to reconsider the imposition of penalties in light of the correct interpretation of the Cenvat Rules. 4. Requirement of Mens Rea for Imposing Penalty under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Rules: The appellant argued that establishing mens rea (criminal intent) is essential before imposing any penalty under Rule 13 of the Cenvat Rules. The High Court did not explicitly address this issue in detail but implied that the Appellate Tribunal should consider whether the appellant's actions warranted a penalty under the correct legal framework. The remand for reconsideration suggests that the Tribunal should evaluate whether the appellant acted with the requisite intent to justify the penalty. Conclusion: The High Court set aside the impugned judgments and orders of the Appellate Tribunal, remanding the appeals for fresh consideration. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal should not rely on the Jaypee Rewa Plant decision, which was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law. The Tribunal was directed to reconsider the eligibility of Cenvat credit for welding electrodes used in repair, maintenance, and installation of machinery, and to re-evaluate the imposition of penalties under the correct legal standards. The appeals were partly allowed, with no order as to costs.
|
