2005 (5) TMI 184 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 2(g) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 regarding eligibility for Cenvat credit on inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods.

Analysis:
The appellant argued that they are covered by Rule 2(g) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, as the inputs used in the manufacture of capital goods were further used in their factory. They provided examples of inputs like MS Steel, Angles, Channels, Bars, Joist, HR Plates used in manufacturing capital goods such as kiln, material handling unit, hopper, and pollution control system. The appellant relied on various decisions to support their claim. The appellant contended that the focus should be on whether the inputs were used in the capital goods, which are then used in the manufacture of final products. The appellant requested the appeal to be allowed.

The respondent opposed the appellant's claim, stating that certain goods were used in construction purposes, and the appellant should not be entitled to take Cenvat credit on those goods. The respondent urged for the appeal to be rejected.

The Tribunal found that the appellant indeed fell under Rule 2(g) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002, as the inputs were used in the manufacture of capital goods in their factory. The Tribunal noted that the Department did not dispute the use of iron and steel products in manufacturing capital goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the key consideration was whether the inputs were used in the capital goods, which are then utilized in the production of final products. The Tribunal cited relevant case laws to support its decision and highlighted that the benefit of Cenvat credit cannot be denied if inputs were used in the manufacture of capital goods and subsequently in the final product. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting relief to the appellants.