Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2024 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 393 - CESTAT MUMBAIRecovery of CENVAT Credit alongwith interest and penalty - steel plates of various grades utilized by the appellant for repair, maintenance and replacement of ‘acid tank’, ‘annealing furnace’ and ‘buckets’ in the factory of manufacture - HELD THAT:- The availment of credit of duty paid on steel plates of various grades on the finding that the definition of ‘capital goods’ in rule 2(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was not allowed for non-conformity with that and that their alternative plea for consideration of eligibility as ‘inputs’ in terms of rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was not to be entertained by recourse to procedural lacuna indicated in the order. On the other hand, the first appellate authority had rejected the appeal solely by relying upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal on the ground that the said decision covered the issue in dispute. On a perusal of rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, we find that the definition therein is intended for such goods as are entitled to availment of credit in terms of rule 3 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; ‘steel plates’ do not come within that definition and, consequently, are not ‘capital goods’ but, nonetheless, the installation of ‘capital goods’ within the factory of manufacture by or on behalf of assessee is permissible towards availment of CENVAT credit on the parts deployed therein to qualify as ‘inputs’ under rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. That claim of the appellant herein has been discarded by the original authority on procedural grounds and had not been considered by the first appellate authority at all. The first appellate authority has failed to subject the order of the original authority, on the discarding of claim for coverage as ‘inputs’ for availment of CENVAT credit on the part of the appellant, to scrutiny. This is an aspect that requires consideration by the original authority. The impugned order set aside and matter remanded back to the original authority to determine the claim of the appellant for coverage of credit within the meaning of rule 2(k) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
|