2015 (9) TMI 1159 - AT - Service Tax

Denial of CENVAT Credit - whether appellant is entitled to avail Cenvat Credit on inputs and capital goods used exclusively for R & D and Quality Control Laboratory situated inside the factory premises - Held that - Appellant is using the Laboratory for carrying out tests regarding necessary colour texture to the plastic granule as per specifications and requirements of the customers, to match the specifications as per global norms and also for developing new products for the customers etc. Appellant will have to meet the specifications of the customers, before the products are manufactured and cleared on payment of duty, by suitable tests and norm fixation. Such an activity in R&D and Quality Control Laboratory is essential for manufacture of finished goods and has to be held as in relation to manufacture of excisable goods and will be eligible to Cenvat Credit under CCR. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Entitlement to Cenvat Credit on inputs and capital goods used exclusively for R & D and Quality Control Laboratory situated inside the factory premises.

Analysis:
The appeal revolves around the entitlement of the appellant to avail Cenvat Credit on inputs and capital goods utilized in the R&D and quality control Laboratory within the factory premises. The appellant's representative argued that the credit was permissible as per the definition of 'capital goods' under Rule 2(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004, emphasizing the use of capital goods in or in relation to the manufacture of finished goods. Reference was made to a previous favorable order by the first appellate authority on the same issue. Case laws such as Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. vs. CCE Pune and USV Ltd. vs. CCE Mumbai were cited to support the appellant's stance.

The Revenue, represented by Shri Govind Jha, contended that R&D machinery and inputs in the Laboratory could not be considered as being used in the manufacture or in relation to the manufacture of excisable goods. The lower authorities' orders were defended, asserting that the denial of credit and imposition of penalties were appropriate.

Upon examining the case records and arguments from both sides, it was deliberated whether the appellant could claim Cenvat Credit on Capital goods and inputs utilized in the R&D and Quality Control Laboratory within the factory premises. The relevant provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules 2004 were scrutinized, focusing on the requirement that specified goods should be used "in the factory of the manufacture of final products." It was noted that the Laboratory activities were essential for the manufacture of finished goods, involving tests to meet customer specifications and global norms, thereby establishing a direct relation to the manufacture of excisable goods and rendering the appellant eligible for Cenvat Credit.

The judgment referenced the case of USV Ltd. vs. CCE Mumbai-I, where it was held that credit for equipment used in the Research Laboratory was admissible, emphasizing the importance of the location of the Laboratory within the factory premises for the manufacture of final products. Additionally, the judgment cited the case of Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd., where the Bombay High Court affirmed that laboratory tests in relation to the manufacture of finished goods are integral to the manufacturing process, irrespective of the physical presence of inputs in the final product. Similar views were echoed in the case of Sudarshan Chemicals Inds. Ltd. vs. CCE Pune-II, emphasizing that testing in the R&D section is an integral part of the manufacture of final products.

Conclusively, based on the aforementioned observations and the cited case laws, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed, granting consequential relief as deemed necessary.