Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 127 - AT - Central ExciseCenvat Credit - capital goods acquired on lease basis from other two entities involved in manufacturing activity is correctly taken or not - Held that:- In the case of Leamak Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (2010 (6) TMI 424 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD) the Tribunal held that the Rule 4(3) only further enlarges scope by stating that the credit would not be disallowed even if capital goods are cleared from the financing company. It does not mean that the capital goods must be acquired from a financing company and any other acquisition of capital goods from the company who is not a financing company will disentitle the availment of credit. The Tribunal held that the interpretation adopted by the Revenue would defeat the very legislative intent of allowing credit in respect of capital goods. Similar findings were recorded earlier in the case of Kalyani Seamless Tubes Ltd. (2004 (8) TMI 217 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ). Considering the above settled position we find no ground for disallowing the credit availed by the appellant in respect of capital goods taken on lease. Regarding denial of credit on certain items of structural steel on the grounds that they do not fall under the definition of capital goods, we find that no categorical finding with specific items and quantum of credit attributable to such items have been made. Considering the credit on these items have already been availed by the units who have later leased them out to the appellant, we find no justification for the observation by the original authorities on these aspects. - Decided in favour of assessee
|