Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (3) TMI 1547 - AT - Central Excise


Issues involved:
Consideration of Cenvat Credit on Cement and Steel items used for foundation in a power plant installation.

Analysis:

1. Issue of Cenvat Credit Eligibility:
The case involved the consideration of Cenvat Credit on Cement and Tor Steel Bars used in the fabrication and erection of a supporting structure for a power plant installation. The authorities had denied the Cenvat credit, arguing that the disputed goods did not qualify as 'Capital Goods' or 'inputs' as per the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The dispute centered around whether the goods used for the foundation of machinery embedded in the earth could be considered for Cenvat Credit.

2. Definition of Capital Goods and Inputs:
The Tribunal examined the definitions of 'capital goods' and 'inputs' as per the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. It was noted that goods falling under specific chapters, components, spares, and accessories of certain goods qualify as capital goods. The definition of inputs included goods used directly or indirectly in the manufacture of final products within the factory of production. The Tribunal emphasized that goods used in the manufacture of capital goods for further use in the factory should also be considered for Cenvat Credit.

3. Application of User Test:
Applying the 'user test' as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal found that the disputed goods, Cement and Steel Bars, were essential components for the fabrication and erection of the supporting structure for the power plant machinery. The Tribunal cited precedents where similar items were considered 'capital goods' by the Madras High Court, extending the Modvat benefit. The 'user test' was crucial in determining the eligibility of goods as capital goods.

4. Judicial Precedents and Interpretation:
The Tribunal referred to judicial precedents where the courts had upheld the eligibility of goods like Cement and Steel used for laying foundations for capital goods as qualifying for Cenvat Credit. The Madras High Court's interpretation emphasized that such goods were integral parts of the capital goods and should be eligible for Cenvat Credit under the relevant rules.

5. Decision and Conclusion:
After a detailed analysis of the definitions, precedents, and the application of the 'user test,' the Tribunal concluded that the disputed goods qualified for Cenvat Credit either as 'capital goods' (accessories) or as 'inputs.' The eligibility for duty credit was upheld based on various decisions of higher courts. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, returning the appeal file to the referral Bench for a decision on merit.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the eligibility of Cement and Steel items used for foundation in a power plant installation for Cenvat Credit, emphasizing the importance of the 'user test' and judicial precedents in determining such eligibility.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates