Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2015 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 1154 - HC - Central ExciseAdmissibility of Cenvat credit - in view of the definition of "Capital Goods" under Rule 2(b) of Rules, 2004 - CENVAT Credit availed treating Welding Electrodes consumed as capital good - Appellant contended that as per Rule 2(a)(A)(iii), 'Welding Electrodes' would come within the term 'components' so as to fall within the category of 'capital goods' - Held that:- Section 2(a)(A)(iii) says that in respect to items mentioned in 2(a)(A)(i) and (ii), components, spares and accessories of the goods specified thereunder would also fall within the category of 'capital goods'. Having failed to point out application of any other provision under Rule 2 (a), the stress on the part of assessee was on the term 'components' under Rule 2 (a)(A) (iii) and it is contended that 'Welding Electrodes', being used for maintenance and repair of machineries and factories, would fall in the category of components, hence would be entitled for CENVAT Credit being 'capital goods'. It is found that 'capital goods' as defined under Rule 2(a) of Rules 2004, in substance, are pari-materia with the 'capital goods' specified in Rule 57-Q of Rules, 1944 and there is no substantial difference therein. Considering a similar argument in the context of Rule 57-Q of Rules, 1944, as it stood in 1999, similar question and submissions have already been considered by this Court recently in M/s Upper Ganges Sugar & Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Customs & Central Excise [2015 (5) TMI 569 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. therefore, by following the same, Cenvat credit is not admissible in view of the definition of "Capital Goods" under Rule 2(b) of Rules, 2004. - Decided against the assessee
|