2018 (8) TMI 607 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT Credit - capital goods - PTFE, Corrugate Hose Pipe, Anyhydrous Therminol 55, Fuel Pil, Additives, Well Glass fitting, Steam Joining sheet, Vee Belt, Epoxy Primer, Gland Packing Jointing Sheet etc. - Held that - The issue has been set at rest and that needs no further adjudication by the Tribunal. Hence the appeal filed by appellant company M/s. Deepak Nitrite Ltd. is allowed and appellant is eligible for the credit and therefore demand is not sustainable - The order of Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the order of first adjudicating Authority is hereby set aside. Credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Refusal of CENVAT Credit on goods used for manufacturing final products.
2. Dismissal of appeal due to low duty value.
3. Interpretation of capital goods definition.
4. Adjudication of appeal based on judicial precedent.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellant appealed against the refusal of CENVAT Credit on goods used for manufacturing final products. The original order imposed duty for the period between July 2014 and May 2015. The appeal was initially dismissed due to low duty value but was later admitted based on a High Court decision. The appellant argued that the goods were used as capital goods for manufacturing activities, supported by a previous Tribunal decision.

Issue 2: The learned Counsel presented an earlier Tribunal decision in favor of the appellant, highlighting the proper availment of CENVAT Credit for goods used as spares/parts/accessories for maintenance of capital goods. The goods in question were the same as those in the present appeal, with the only difference being the period of availment. The Counsel emphasized the finality of the previous Tribunal decision due to the absence of an appeal against it.

Issue 3: The Assistant Commissioner for the department attempted to justify the orders passed by the Appellant Authority and Commissioner (Appeals) by referring to the definition of capital goods. However, the Tribunal's detailed finding in a previous judgment accepted the appellant's argument regarding the use of the goods as capital goods in the manufacturing unit.

Issue 4: Based on the judicial precedent and the settled issue regarding the proper availment of CENVAT Credit for goods used in manufacturing activities, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant company. The appellant was deemed eligible for the credit, and the demand was considered unsustainable. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the original order was set aside, concluding the matter in favor of the appellant.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of judicial precedent, proper interpretation of legal definitions, and the finality of previous decisions in resolving disputes related to CENVAT Credit and capital goods in manufacturing processes.