2015 (10) TMI 2565 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat credit - Penalty - Held that - the disputed goods have been used by the appellant for repair, maintenance and fabrication of the machines/ machineries installed in the plant - From the purchase requisition slips available in the file that the appellant had clearly mentioned the requirement of the disputed goods for the intended purpose i.e. for repair and maintenance of various machines, namely, kiln, Clinker stock pipes etc - ven assuming that the disputed goods cannot be considered as capital goods, still I am of the view that the same shall be considered as input for the purpose of taking cenvat credit in view of the unambiguous definition of input contained in Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules - Decided in favor of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of cenvat credit on disputed goods used for repair and maintenance
- Interpretation of input and capital goods under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004
- Application of relevant case laws in determining cenvat benefit eligibility

Analysis:
1. Denial of Cenvat Credit on Disputed Goods: The case involved a dispute regarding the denial of cenvat credit on iron and steel articles used by the appellant for repair and maintenance of machinery in their factory. The Department initiated proceedings seeking recovery of cenvat credit on the ground that the disputed goods were not directly linked to the manufacture of final products. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the demand, which was upheld by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

2. Interpretation of Input and Capital Goods: The Ld. Advocate for the appellant argued that the disputed goods should be considered as input under Rule 2(k) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as they were used for repair and maintenance of machinery falling under specific chapters of the Central Excise Tariff Act. He relied on judgments from the Rajasthan and Karnataka High Courts to support the claim for cenvat credit eligibility on the disputed goods.

3. Application of Case Laws: On the contrary, the Ld. Commissioner (AR) for the respondent contended that there was no nexus between the disputed goods and the final product, thus denying cenvat benefit as either input or capital goods. She referenced a Supreme Court judgment to support the argument that the disputed goods could not be considered as capital goods.

4. Tribunal's Decision: After hearing arguments from both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the disputed goods were indeed used for repair and maintenance of machinery in the plant. The Tribunal held that the disputed goods should be considered as capital goods under Rule 2(a)(A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, or alternatively as input under Rule 2(k). The Tribunal distinguished the Supreme Court judgment cited by the Ld. Commissioner (AR) as not applicable to the present case under the Cenvat regime. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that denial of cenvat benefit would go against the legislative intent behind the Cenvat scheme.