Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 565 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
CENVAT Credit - various items of MS steel etc., utilized in fabrication of capital goods like pollution control equipment, heating furnace, casting machine, coating machine, chimney, rolling machine, reheating machine, control panel, etc. - period December, 2005 to March, 2010 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- With the introduction of Cenvat credit rules 2004, capital goods as defined in rule 2(a)(A) of CCR includes items like pollution-control equipment, storage tank which are practically immovable. Thus, the concept of movable or immovable for allowing credit have been done away with. We further find Rule 2(K) of CCR entitles a manufacturer to take credit of all items/goods received in the factory of production whether forming part of the finished product or not. Even inputs received for fabrication of capital goods are also entitled for Cenvat credit. Only condition is that such fabricated capital goods should have been used in the production of dutiable finished goods. There is no such dispute raised in the SCN that the capital goods fabricated by the Appellant out of the inputs have not been used for manufacture of dutiable finished goods.
Further, the Appellant have maintained proper records in the nature of purchase vouchers for the inputs, receipt of inputs in the factory of production and the utilisation of the same in fabrication/manufacture of capital goods. Such utilisation is also supported by the certificate of the Chartered Engineer which have not been found to be untrue - further there is no allegation in the SCN that the Appellant have clandestinely removed any of the inputs received.
So far as beams/joints, etc., which have been used in the preparation of stand, etc., to support Plant and machinery or as structure for support of capital goods, the same is held allowable by Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/S. INDIA CEMENTS LTD. VERSUS THE CUSTOM, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX & THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, [2015 (3) TMI 661 - MADRAS HIGH COURT].
Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- There is no case of any concealment, mis-statement or fraud on the part of the Appellant/assessee - it is further found that as regards the capital goods fabricated out of the inputs, there is no allegation that such capital goods have been sourced from any other manufacturer by the Appellant/ assessee - the extended period of limitation is not invokable.