Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 491 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - Cenvat Credit - denial on the ground that tractors are not capital goods as defined under CCR 2004 since not installed within the factory premises - denial of benefit of notification No.22/2003 - Held that: - procurement of raw materials and process for such procurement is integral part of manufacture. That tractors used for transportation of raw materials and also for returning the remnant sand to the beach is part of the manufacturing process and that without such activity, the respondents cannot carryout the manufacturing activity. The definition of ‘capital goods' given in CCR, 2004 relates to 'capital goods' on which credit can be availed. In CCE Vs Kejriwal Bee care Ltd. [2011 (1) TMI 422 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] the Tribunal observed that, when the notification does not provide the definition of capital goods, the same has to be construed as used in common parlance. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|