Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 1360 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - inputs or not - bought-out items - denial on the ground that the bought-out items do not qualify as inputs under Rule 2(k) of the Credit Rules as they are stored at the gate only and no manufacturing activity is carried out on them - scope of SCN - Inclusion of value of the accessories on which CENVAT credit is availed in the assessable value of the motor vehicles cleared by the respondents - suppression of facts or not - extended period of limitation. Admissibility of CENVAT credit on certain bought out items purchased by the respondent and supplied along with the vehicles - HELD THAT - It is found that learned Commissioner correctly finds that the only requirement for the entitlement to avail CENVAT credit is that the inputs are capital goods must be received in the factory of manufacture of final products; the receipt of the inputs in the factory is not disputed and therefore credit is admissible. It is further found that relying on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehra Brothers Vs Joint Commercial Officer 1990 (11) TMI 144 - SUPREME COURT learned Commissioner finds that the test as to verify whether an item is an accessory or part of the vehicle is whether the article or articles in question would be an adjunct or an accompaniment or an addition for the convenient use of another part of the vehicle or adds to the beauty elegance or comfort for the use of the motor vehicle or as a supplementary or secondary to the main or primary importance and the other test may be whether a particular article or articles or parts can be said to be available for sale in an automobile market or shops or places of manufacture - the Commissioner applied this test and the provisions of the Rules and came to a conclusion that the items qualify to be parts or accessories . Scope of SCN - HELD THAT - The learned Commissioner rightly finds that the impugned items are either parts or accessories and therefore credit is admissible before 01.03.2011 or after 01.03.2011. Authorized Representative for the Revenue tried to explain during the hearing on the basis of a sample invoice that the value of the impugned accessories is not included in the assessable value of the motor vehicles. It is found that this submission is beyond the scope of the show cause notice and the grounds of appeal. Revenue s appeal is very clear that it is only on the grounds that learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any findings as to the impugned goods vis- -vis their admissibility to CENVAT credit. Therefore it is not open for the Revenue to set up a new case at this juncture. Inclusion of value of the accessories on which CENVAT credit is availed in the assessable value of the motor vehicles cleared by the respondents - HELD THAT - It is found that inclusion or otherwise of the value of the accessories on which CENVAT credit is availed in the assessable value of the motor vehicles cleared by the respondents is not the subject matter of the grounds of appeal. In view of the assertions by the adjudicating authority that such value of the accessories is included in the assessable value of the motor vehicles; the argument of the learned Authorized Representative does not succeed. As the Department has accepted the OIO dated 25.11.2013 and no proceedings have been initiated for further period it is not open for the Department to dispute the admissibility in the impugned case. Hon ble Apex Court in the case of S.S. Engineers 2023 (7) TMI 717 - SC ORDER held that Having regard to the fact that for the subsequent period the Department has taken a stand that the bought-out items are not entered in the factory and the Assessee has not claimed credit on them there is no case for adding their value in the assessable value and hence no proceeding need be initiated in the form of a show cause notice we find that for the previous period in respect of which this appeal arises the stand of the Department cannot be contrary to what has been stated above. Hence we do not find any merit in the appeal. Conclusion - Revenue s appeal upholding the Commissioner s order that allowed CENVAT credit on the disputed items dismissed.
|