Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 427 - CESTAT NEW DELHIExtended period of limitation - CENVAT Credit - appellant are not the manufacturers of the final product TGT plant demand on the ground that the fact regarding assembling/manufacture of TGT - Plant by Thermax Ltd. came to the knowledge of department only at the time of audit by department, which would otherwise have escaped attention - HELD THAT:- The respondent had availed credit on goods mentioned in the invoices provided by the contractor to the respondent. The goods on which such credit was taken are components, spares and/or accessories of goods classifiable under chapter 84, 85 or 90 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It is not disputed that the component/parts of TGT plant were received in the factory premises of the respondent under duty paid invoices which was in the name of the respondent. Admittedly, the TGT plant was manufactured out of such parts/spares/components and such plant was used in the manufacture of the dutiable final product. There is no dispute that machineries/components received at the factory of the respondent on which the credit has been availed are indeed capital goods in terms of Rule 2(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules as is evident from the fact that the credit arrangement has been restricted in the impugned show cause notice to 50% in each year. The Tribunal in several earlier decisions has held that the prerequisite for availment of CENVAT credit in respect of capital goods in the factory of manufacturer is its receipt in the factory and use in the manufacture of dutiable final product. The Tribunal in a similar factual matrix in the case of GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGARH [2000 (8) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], held that they are eligible to the benefit of Modvat credit on parts, components and accessories of DG sets in terms of the provisions of Rule 57-T(7) of the Central Excise Rules, we do not deem it necessary to pronounce upon the other submissions of the appellants. The impugned order is restored - Appeal dismissed.
|