2016 (3) TMI 95 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of Cenvat credit on moulds - whether moulds are in possession of the appellant? - Held that - As upon verification of the documents and after visiting of the factory of the appellant, the Chartered Engineer has certified that the moulds in question are in possession of the appellant and that the said moulds are running in good working condition. The said certificate proves beyond any shadow of doubt that the moulds on which cenvat credit taken by the appellant had been installed in the factory for use, in or in relation to manufacture of the final product. In view of the fact that the said moulds have not been removed from the factory, the requirements of Rule 3 (5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules will have no application. The said rule provides payment of equal amount of cenvat credit, when the Cenvat availed inputs or capital goods are removed as such from the factory. Since, moulds, in this case, have not been removed from the factory by the appellant; denial of cenvat benefit by the authorities below is not justified. Further, ownership or control of capital goods by the assessee is not a decisive factor for determination of eligibility to Cenvat credit. As per the statutory provisions, an assessee is entitled to avail Cenvat credit on the inputs or capital goods, upon fulfilment of the condition that those goods have suffered duty and received in the factory of manufacture of final product. In the present case, since the requirement of the Cenvat statute has been duly complied with by the appellant, denial of Cenvat credit on moulds is not proper and justified. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Availment of cenvat credit on moulds treated as capital goods
- Denial of cenvat benefit under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
- Ownership/title transfer of moulds to buyers affecting cenvat credit eligibility

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing automobile parts, availed cenvat credit on Central Excise duty paid on moulds, treating them as capital goods. The Central Excise Department denied the cenvat benefit under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, upon discovering that the cost of moulds was recovered from customers. The appellant argued that since the moulds were installed in the factory and not removed, Rule 3(5) should not apply. The Department contended that ownership/title transfer of moulds to buyers rendered cenvat credit unavailable.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted that a Chartered Engineer certified the moulds were in possession of the appellant and in working condition within the factory. As the moulds were not removed, Rule 3(5) did not apply, which mandates payment of cenvat credit upon removal of availed inputs or capital goods from the factory. The Tribunal emphasized that ownership/control of capital goods is not decisive for cenvat credit eligibility; compliance with statutory provisions is key. Since the appellant fulfilled the Cenvat statute requirements, denial of cenvat credit on moulds was deemed unjustified.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order confirming the Cenvat demand under Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.