Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2020 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 539 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - capital goods - ingot moulds - period April 2000 to March 2002 and May to June 2002 - Circular of CBEC dated May 5, 2000 - HELD THAT:- There is no restriction that in the event a particular goods is a “capital goods”, they cannot be components or spares or accessories of the goods specified in subclause (i) of Rule 57AA(a)/Rule 2(b) of the 1944 Rules and the Cenvat Credit Rules respectively. In the absence of any such restriction in the statutory provisions, the conclusion would be that either as components or accessories of goods falling under clause (i) of the aforesaid Rules or independently under clause (ii) thereof, moulds, dies, tubes and fittings would be treated as “capital goods” for the purpose of availment of cenvat credit - It therefore follows that when such moulds, dies, tubes and pipes are used as components and accessories of goods specified under clause (i) of the said Rules, the exception as provided in Rule 4(2)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001/Rule 57AC(2)(b) of the 1944 Rules from the said goods being required to be in possession and use of the manufacturer of final products in the subsequent year, would be available and cenvat credit of the duty paid thereon can be availed even without satisfying such requirement. The capital goods as defined in Rule 57AA(a)(ii) of 1944 Rules/Rule 2(b)(ii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001 can be both used in an independent manner by itself as well as an accessory of another capital goods covered under clause (i) of both the said Rules and that the ingot moulds, in the instant case, on an application of the principles laid down in various decisions, is an “accessory” of the LD Converter, which undisputedly is capital goods under clause (i) of the said Rules - reliance can be placed in the case of BANCO PRODUCTS (INDIA) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., VADODARA-I [2009 (2) TMI 101 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] and PRECISION RUBBER INDUSTRIES VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE [1990 (3) TMI 76 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY]. The TSL had correctly availed cenvat credit of the balance 50% of the duty paid on the ingot moulds in the subsequent years - demand in respect of cenvat credit on ingot moulds are therefore unsustainable - also, TSL had correctly availed cenvat credit on the said welding wires and rods amounting to ₹ 2.48 lakhs. Demand set aside - penalty set aside - appeal disposed off.
|