2018 (5) TMI 1559 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit - Dry ice Vehicle falling under Chapter 8716/8701 of CETA 1985 - credit availed in July/August 2015 on invoices issued during the period from 2009 to 2015 - Held that - A plain reading of the definition of capital goods reveals that the goods should be used in the factory premises whereas in the present case the motor vehicles are used by the appellant for delivering the finished goods to their customers hence cannot be said to be eligible to the credit of excise duty paid on such vehicles - the appellant has not rebutted the findings of the authorities below that on the disputed capital goods they had availed the benefit of depreciation under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act 1961 - credit not allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Eligibility of appellant to avail Cenvat credit on 'Dry ice Vehicle'
2. Interpretation of the definition of capital goods under Rule 2(a) of CCR, 2004

Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility of appellant to avail Cenvat credit on 'Dry ice Vehicle'
The appellant contended that the vehicles, specifically designed for hazardous cargo and used for delivering goods to customers, should be considered as capital goods eligible for Cenvat credit. They argued that denying credit based on the vehicles being used outside the factory premises would defeat the purpose of the law. Additionally, they claimed that the demand was time-barred. However, the Revenue argued that the credit availed in 2015 against invoices from 2009 was inadmissible. The Revenue also pointed out that the vehicles were used to transport goods outside the factory premises and had been depreciated under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's argument, stating that the vehicles did not meet the definition of capital goods as per Rule 2(a) of CCR, 2004, and hence, the denial of Cenvat credit was justified. The appeal was dismissed based on these findings.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the definition of capital goods under Rule 2(a) of CCR, 2004
The Tribunal referred to the definition of capital goods under Rule 2(a) of CCR, 2004, which specifies that capital goods should be used in the factory premises. The Tribunal noted that the vehicles in question were used for delivering finished goods to customers, not for providing output services within the factory premises. Additionally, the appellant had availed depreciation benefits under the Income Tax Act, further indicating that the vehicles were not eligible for Cenvat credit as capital goods. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision and dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the vehicles did not meet the criteria outlined in the definition of capital goods.