2017 (9) TMI 338 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - capital goods - denial for the reason that these items have not been capitalized in the balance sheet of the appellant and also on the ground that these items are not used as component, spare and accessories of capital goods or pollution control equipment nor were they used for spare accessories or capital goods - Held that - there is no requirement of capitalizing in balance sheet expenses on capital goods in the Central Excise law. The definition of capital goods in the Companies Act would determine which goods can be capitalized. The definition of capital goods in the Central Excise Act would determine the availability of credit on the goods - there is no doubt from the description given by the appellant that these goods had qualified as component and accessories of the capital goods and hence credit on these goods would be admissible - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of credit on various items claimed under capital goods definition.

Analysis:
The appellant, M/s. MIRC Electronics Ltd., appealed against the denial of credit on several items used in their manufacturing process. These items included cleaning wire, push rod, paints, clip, coupling, spring, and synthetic grease. The appellant claimed credit under capital goods, but the heads under which the duty was paid did not specifically fall within the definition of capital goods at the material time. The definition of capital goods under Rule 2 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was crucial in determining the admissibility of credit. The appellant contended that the items in question could be considered as capital goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) had denied the benefit based on the grounds that the items were not capitalized in the balance sheet and were not used as components, spares, or accessories of capital goods or pollution control equipment.

The Tribunal analyzed the contentions of both parties and noted that the requirement of capitalizing goods in the balance sheet was not a prerequisite for availing credit under Central Excise law. The definition of capital goods in the Central Excise Act was distinct from that in the Companies Act, and the Tribunal emphasized that the availability of credit was determined by the former. The appellant demonstrated the specific uses of the items in their manufacturing process, rebutting the generic comments made in the impugned order. The appellant also cited precedents where similar items were allowed as components or accessories of capital goods, strengthening their case for credit eligibility.

Regarding synthetic grease, the Tribunal referred to previous judgments where credit on lubricating oils, greases, paints, and thinners had been allowed as inputs. Relying on these decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the credit on paint and synthetic grease could not be disallowed. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis highlighted the importance of the specific uses of the items in question and the applicability of precedents in determining the eligibility of credit under the capital goods definition. The judgment clarified the distinction between the definitions of capital goods in different laws and underscored the relevance of established legal principles in deciding credit claims on inputs used in manufacturing processes.