2018 (2) TMI 1098 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - input/capital goods - MS Plates, Chequered Plates, RS Joist, Prime Hot Rolled Over Rolling etc. used in the manufacture of EOT, Gantry Cranes and in the construction of supporting structures - Held that - issue on eligibility of input credit for goods like MS Plates, Chequered Plates, RS Joist, Prime Hot Rolled Over Rolling etc., used in the manufacture of structures for movement of EOT Cranes, Iron Frames for EOT Cranes etc., is no longer res integra and has been put to rest in favour of the assessee in a plethora of cases - the disputed inputs are very much eligible inputs for the purpose of availment of Cenvat credit by the assessee. Capital goods used outside the factory premises of the assessee - Held that - all the capital goods had been manufactured only in the assessee s main Unit and were cleared to their own extended premises/Units where the job work of the main Unit was undertaken - credit allowed. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of Cenvat credit on input materials like MS Plates, Chequered Plates, RS Joist, Prime Hot Rolled Over Rolling used in manufacturing.
2. Dispute regarding the eligibility of capital goods used outside the factory premises.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the eligibility of M/s. GB Engineering Enterprises (P) Ltd. to avail Cenvat credit on input materials like MS Plates, Chequered Plates, RS Joist, Prime Hot Rolled Over Rolling used in the manufacture of EOT, Gantry Cranes, and supporting structures. The Department contended that these materials were not eligible for credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that the appellants are indeed eligible for the credit. The Tribunal referred to precedents like M/s Crystal Cable Industries Ltd and Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik Vs M/s. Inshu Super Steel Pvt. Ltd., holding that the disputed inputs are eligible for Cenvat credit.

2. The second issue revolved around the utilization of capital goods outside the factory premises. The Department argued that the capital goods were used in different locations, making them ineligible for credit. However, the Tribunal noted that all capital goods were manufactured in the assessee's main Unit and cleared to their extended premises for job work, as per the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Vlkram Cement Vs CCE. The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's conclusion that the capital goods removed for job work to other premises are eligible for credit under Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR, 2004. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Department was rejected, and cross objections were disposed of.