2016 (11) TMI 930 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - crane rails, rails etc. - inputs under Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - whether the appellant having availed credit under the category of inputs can content that they are eligible for credit under the category of capital goods? - Held that - The said issue stands covered by the decisions laid by the Tribunal as well as various High Courts. In CC&CE, Meerut-l vs, Modi Rubber Ltd. 2000 (5) TMI 64 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI where it was held that the declaration filed by the assessee in terms of Rule 57Q was Sufficient for the purpose of extending credit on glass bottles which were inputs within the meaning of Rule 57A. - I consider that the claim put forward by appellants under the category of capital goods in their reply to show-cause notice yields merit. Denial of credit is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Availment of CENVAT credit on certain goods as inputs.
2. Applicability of credit under the category of capital goods.
3. Eligibility for credit on rails and materials used in railway tracks.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellants, manufacturers of iron and steel products, wrongly availing CENVAT credit on goods like crane rails and rails as inputs, which the Department contended were not covered under the definition of inputs as per Rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. A show-cause notice was issued, leading to the demand, interest, and penalty being confirmed by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals), prompting the appellants to approach the Tribunal for relief.

2. The appellant argued that the rails were essential for use within the factory, citing relevant decisions and Circulars to support their claim for credit under the category of inputs or capital goods. The Department, however, maintained that the goods did not fall within the definition of inputs, and hence the credit was rightly disallowed. The Tribunal deliberated on whether the appellant, having availed credit under the category of inputs, could now claim eligibility under the category of capital goods, citing precedent judgments to support their decision.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the issue of eligibility for credit on rails and materials used in railway tracks, considering their integral role in the manufacturing process within the factory. Referring to various judgments and observations, including those from the High Court and the Tribunal, it was concluded that the denial of credit was unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential reliefs, if any, based on the precedents and the merits of the case presented.