9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1017 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - capital goods - modular partitions, flame proof partitions, Quartz plate, verticals panel, non-walkable ceiling, PCQI door etc. - Held that - Similar issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v, Rane Brake Lining Ltd. 2011 (2) TMI 415 - CESTAT, CHENNAI , where Tribunal held in favor of the assessee therein where similar items of pre-fabricated structures were used for fabrication of cold room - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Eligibility for CENVAT Credit on machinery and modular partitions used in the manufacture of sensitive printing materials. Analysis: The appeal was against an order-in-appeal dated 20.12.2016. The issue revolved around the eligibility to avail CENVAT Credit on various items like modular partitions, flame-proof partitions, Quartz plate, verticals panel, non-walkable ceiling, PCQI door, etc., used in the manufacturing process. The appellant claimed that these items were essential for manufacturing sensitive printing materials. It was undisputed that the goods were received in the factory premises and were duty paid. The only contention raised by the department was that these items did not qualify as capital goods. The department argued that since these goods were immovable once installed, they became non-excisable. The Tribunal referred to a previous case, Commissioner of Central Excise v. Rane Brake Lining Ltd. 2011 (267) ELT 378 (Tri. Chen), where a similar issue was addressed, and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing CENVAT Credit. Another case was cited where the Tribunal, following the judgment of Rane Brake Lining Ltd., held in favor of the assessee when similar pre-fabricated structures were used for a cold room. The Tribunal found that the ratio of the previous judgment applied to the current case as well. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was not sustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, following the precedent set by previous judgments and ruling in favor of the appellant.
|
