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 447 - CESTAT KOLKATADenial of MODVAT Credit availed on capital goods - levy of penalty - denial of credit on the ground that they do not conform by their description either as specified machines or parts and accessories of such machines - HELD THAT:- The Appellant has produced details of capital goods of which these goods are claimed as parts and accessories. Accordingly, most of the items specified therein are eligible for credit as 'capital goods' as defined under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules. 1944. Regarding the remaining goods , the appellant contended that even if the goods are not covered under the definition of 'capital goods' they are eligible for credit under “input” category as per Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, it is observed that the adjudicating authority has rejected their contention on the ground that these two categories are not interchangeable. There is no doubt that these goods on which MODVAT credit has been availed were received in the factory premises of the Appellant. Also, there is no dispute that these goods were duty paid and used in relation to manufacture of final product. As these goods were received in the factory premises and they have been used in manufacture of dutiable final products, we hold that they qualify as 'inputs' used in the manufacture of dutiable goods and hence qualify as 'inputs' as defined under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Accordingly, the appellant is eligible for the credit of Rs.50,98,653/- either as 'capital goods' as defined under Rule 57Q or as 'inputs' as defined under Rule 57A of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 1944. Denial of credit on the ground that the invoices based on which the credit has been availed do not contain description of goods/part no. of goods - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute regarding the receipt of these goods in the factory of the Appellant, and its use in the manufacturing process. Apart from non-mentioning of description or part nos. of goods there is no allegation that other mandatory particulars have been incorrectly mentioned or not mentioned at all. It is a settled position of law that substantive right should not be denied merely due to procedural infirmities. Accordingly, denial of MODVAT credit merely due to deficiency in invoice is not sustainable - this tribunal in Appellant’s own case TATA MOTORS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., JAMSHEDPUR [2009 (10) TMI 316 - CESTAT, KOLKATA] dealt with a similar nature of dispute and allowed credit even if there was some deficiency in the invoice. By following the decision cited above, it is held that the MODVAT credit availed by the Appellant cannot be denied. Since, the credit availed is held to be eligible, no penalty imposable. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside. Appeal allowed.
|