2018 (7) TMI 974 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - items/goods used for the erection of Gas Manufacturing Plant - no Central Excise duty was paid on the said plants - Held that - An identical issue decided in the case of M/S JSW ISPAT STEEL LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE 2013 (11) TMI 1389 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that CENVAT Credit of excise duty paid on parts, components and accessories would be admissible under the Capital Goods Credit scheme even if they are assembled into goods which are immovable or exempted - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of CENVAT Credit, demand of interest, imposition of penalty under Rule 15(2) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the denial of CENVAT Credit, interest demand, and penalty imposition. The appellant, engaged in steel manufacturing, availed CENVAT Credit on items used for setting up a Gas Manufacturing Plant. The Revenue sought to deny the credit, leading to the appeal. The Counsel argued citing a similar case involving JSW Steel Ltd. The Tribunal analyzed Rule 2(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, defining 'capital goods' to include machinery, equipment, appliances, and their components. It was emphasized that the machinery need not be used as such in manufacturing excisable goods. The Tribunal referred to various precedents, including Pepsi Foods, Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., and others, to support the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on capital goods even if assembled into immovable property. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to capital goods credit for machinery used in setting up the oxygen plant within the factory premises, setting aside the order denying credit and allowing the appeal.

The Tribunal's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the definition of 'capital goods' under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It clarified that the machinery need not be used as standalone units in manufacturing processes to qualify for credit. The Tribunal highlighted precedents where ownership or immovability of goods did not disentitle the assessee from availing CENVAT Credit. The decision emphasized the objective of relieving the burden of tax cascading and interpreted the law in a manner to achieve this purpose reasonably. By allowing the appeal and setting aside the order denying credit, the Tribunal upheld the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on machinery, equipment, appliances, and their components used in setting up the oxygen plant within the factory premises.

Overall, the Tribunal's analysis focused on interpreting the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, in a manner that aligns with the objective of tax relief and avoids tax cascading. The decision provided clarity on the admissibility of CENVAT Credit on capital goods, emphasizing that the machinery need not be used in isolation in manufacturing processes to qualify for credit. By referencing relevant precedents and legal principles, the Tribunal established the appellants' entitlement to capital goods credit for machinery used in setting up the oxygen plant within the factory premises, ultimately allowing the appeal and setting aside the order denying credit.