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 137 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT credit - security service - capital goods - integrated units - The appellant did not register second unit under the Central Excise provisions since there was no manufacturing process undertaken but was only a supporting unit for first registered unit of the appellant - Held that: - both the units belong to the appellant but due to shortage of space in Unit-I, the appellant has established Unit-II which is situated in the same area and fall under the same Range and Division of the Commissionerate and both the units are integrated units as some of the processes are being carried out in another unit and are returned back to the first unit and from there it is cleared on payment of duty and this arrangement has been informed to the department - CENVAT credit on security services received at Unit-II cannot be denied on the ground that the same is not used by the manufacturer, as both the units belong to the same manufacturer and both are connected and integrated units - Similarly, the other issue that capital goods were not used in the factory is also not sustainable. The denial of credit on capital goods on the ground that the appellant have taken the 100% credit in the first year itself instead of 50%, the denial of 100% credit is also not sustainable because in the subsequent financial year, the appellant is entitled to take credit and the appellant had sufficient CENVAT credit balance in their account which they have not utilized. Therefore, denial of CENVAT credit on this count is also wrong. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|