Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 35 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - capital goods acquired on lease basis for another part of the respondent’s factory - denial on the ground that M/s IISIPL is not a Finance Company but is engaged in industrial operation. Rule 4(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules allows Cenvat credit of capital goods if such capital goods are acquired or leased from a Finance Company - Held that: - At the time of receipt of the relevant goods, M/s. IISIPL was the buyer of these capital goods. However, the goods were consigned to the respondent where they were erected. It is also not disputed that these goods have also been used by the respondent in the manufacture and clearance of dutiable goods. Further, IISIPL have since been merged with the respondent in terms of orders of the Hon’ble High Court of the Bombay w.e.f. 31.03.2008 - a similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the respondent’s own case in respect of capital goods acquired on lease basis for another part of the respondent’s factory. He relied upon the case of Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur [2016 (3) TMI 127 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that 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. - credit allowed. CENVAT credit - various steel items used in the manufacture of immovable supporting structures for capital goods - Held that: - The dispute on the admissibility of Cenvat credit on steel items used for fabrication of supporting structures for capital goods has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of Singhal Enterprises Pvt. Limited V. CCE [2016 (9) TMI 682 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that applying the “User Test” to the facts in hand, we have no hesitation in holding that the structural items used in the fabrication of support structures would fall within the ambit of ‘Capital Goods’ as contemplated under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - credit allowed. Appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.
|