2014 (5) TMI 907 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of CENVAT credit - Held that - CCE vs. Rishi Steels & Alloys P. Ltd. 2005 (8) TMI 271 - CESTAT, MUMBAI wherein this Tribunal has held that any machinery although received prior to 1.4.2000 and installed and put to use thereafter, CENVAT credit cannot be denied. Therefore, following the precedent decision of the Tribunal in Rishi Steels & Alloys P. Ltd. (supra), I hold that appellant are entitled to take CENVAT credit on the capital goods procured prior to 1.4.2000 which have been put to use after 1.4.2000 - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods procured before 1.4.2000 but put to use after that date.

Analysis:
The appellant, a manufacturer of iron and steel products, appealed against the denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods procured before 1.4.2000 but put to use in June 2000. The appellant had been paying duty under the compounded levy scheme on clearance of certain inputs during the period 1997-2000, as they were in the process of setting up a project for manufacturing iron and steel products. The denial of CENVAT credit was based on the premise that the capital goods were procured before 1.4.2000 and put to use only in June 2000. This denial led to the initiation of proceedings that culminated in the impugned order, prompting the appellant to appeal.

The appellant's counsel relied on a precedent set by the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Rishi Steels & Alloys P. Ltd. 2006 (205) ELT 455. In that case, it was established that even if machinery was received before 1.4.2000 and put to use after that date, CENVAT credit could not be denied. Following this precedent, the judge, Ashok Jindal, held that the appellant was indeed entitled to take CENVAT credit on the capital goods procured before 1.4.2000 but utilized after that date. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the appellant's position was upheld based on the Tribunal's previous decision in a similar case.

In conclusion, the judgment resolved the issue of denial of CENVAT credit on capital goods procured before 1.4.2000 but put to use after that date in favor of the appellant. The decision was guided by the precedent set by the Tribunal in a similar case, emphasizing that the timing of procurement versus utilization of capital goods should not preclude the entitlement to CENVAT credit.