2023 (10) TMI 525 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - capital goods - printers and cartridge - packing materials - exclusion clause under Rule 2(a)(A)(i) of CCR - HELD THAT - The items namely printers and the printer cartridges though covered by the definition of capital goods as argued by the appellant have not been used in the manufacturing premises but in the office of the appellant located within the premises of the appellant. Commissioner (Appeals) has referred to the exclusion clause. Exclusion Clause specifically excludes equipment or appliances used in the offices, definitely printer and its cartridges nothing but the equipment of appliance and not the furniture in respect of which board has issued the clarification since these equipments or appliances are used in office, they fall within the exclusion clause of the definition and hence credit in respect of these would not be permissible. Similar view has been expressed by Mumbai Bench in case of M/S BHARTI AIRTEL LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE 2012 (4) TMI 362 - CESTAT, MUMBAI observing there is no direct nexus between this item and the output service provided by the appellant. The appellant has not established sufficient nexus between printers and their output service. Cenvat credit on the packing material which was delivered at the warehouses located at Lawrence Road, Delhi - HELD THAT - There are no much justification in the order, it is settled principle in law till the time it can establish that the inputs were used in or in relation to manufacture and clearance of the finished products. The Cenvat credit in respect of the same cannot be denied. It is also the depot has been considered as the place of the clearance for the excisable goods, warehouse where these boxes were delivered is a depot of the appellant from where sugar was cleared after being repacked in these corrugated boxes, these facts are not in dispute. Cenvat credit of Rs.41,078/- taken in respect of these packing materials is held to be admissible and remaining credit of Rs.29,341/- Rs.23,610/- Rs.52,951/- is held to be not admissible to the appellant. In the respect of credit disallowed the demand of interest also needs to be upheld. Penalty under Rule 15 (2) read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is upheld to the extent of Cenvat credit disallowed. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of CENVAT credit on printers and cartridges used in the office.
2. Denial of CENVAT credit on corrugated boxes delivered outside the factory premises.

Summary:

Issue 1: Denial of CENVAT credit on printers and cartridges used in the office

The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of CENVAT credit on printers and cartridges used in the office, citing the exclusion clause under Rule 2(a)(A)(i) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which specifically excludes "any equipment or appliance used in an office" from the definition of capital goods. The appellant's argument that printers and cartridges are essential for production and should be considered capital goods under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act was rejected. The Tribunal referenced the decision of the Mumbai Bench in Bharti Airtel Ltd, which affirmed that office equipment does not qualify as capital goods if not directly related to the output service. Consequently, the credit of Rs.52,951/- on printers and cartridges was disallowed.

Issue 2: Denial of CENVAT credit on corrugated boxes delivered outside the factory premises

The Commissioner (Appeals) denied CENVAT credit on corrugated boxes delivered to a warehouse at Lawrence Road, Delhi, rather than the factory premises. Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, stipulates that credit is admissible for inputs received in the factory of the manufacturer. However, the Tribunal found that the warehouse acted as a depot from where the final product (sugar) was repacked and cleared, aligning with the principle that inputs used in relation to the manufacture and clearance of finished products are eligible for credit. Citing the case of Hawkins Cookers Ltd., the Tribunal allowed the CENVAT credit of Rs.41,078/- for the corrugated boxes.

Conclusion:

The appeal was partially allowed. The CENVAT credit of Rs.41,078/- for the corrugated boxes was held admissible, while the credit of Rs.52,951/- for printers and cartridges was disallowed. The demand of interest and penalty under Rule 15 (2) read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was upheld to the extent of the disallowed credit. The judgment was pronounced on 11/10/2023.