9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1501 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - inputs capital goods and input services used by the captive mines located away from the factory - Revenue submits that DSP although an integrated unit of the appellant but input received at Bolani Mines was nowhere connected with the DSP who has taken the cenvat credit therefore the authorities below has rightly denied the cenvat credit to the appellant - HELD THAT - The said issue has been settled by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of VIKRAM CEMENT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE INDORE 2006 (1) TMI 130 - SUPREME COURT wherein the Hon ble Apex Court has held As regards the Modvat/Cenvat credit on capital goods if the mines are captive mines so that they constitute one integrated unit together with the concerned cement factory Modvat/Cenvat credit on capital goods will be available to the assessee. On the other hand if the mines are not captive mines but they supply to various other cement companies of different assessees Modvat/Cenvat credit on capital goods used in such mines will not be available to the concerned assessee under the appropriate Modvat/Cenvat Rules. The matters are remanded to the respective original authorities for decision only on the above issue. As the issue has already been decided by the Apex Court that capital goods inputs or input services used in captive mines of the appellant the appellant is entitled to take Cenvat Credit of the same. In this case the appellant is having an integrated unit comprising three units and DSP also and availed cenvat credit on input capital goods and input services used in captive mines by procurement of iron ore to be used in manufacture of final product by the units of the appellant the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit. There are no merits in the impugned orders and the same are set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for Cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods, and input services used in captive mines. 2. Legality of Bolani Mines as an Input Service Distributor (ISD) under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 3. Validity of cenvat credit availed and utilized by the appellant against ISD documents. 4. Interpretation of the term "received in the factory" under Cenvat Credit Rules. 5. Timeliness of availing Cenvat credit in light of Rule 4(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for Cenvat Credit on Inputs, Capital Goods, and Input Services Used in Captive Mines: The primary issue in this case was whether the appellant was entitled to avail Cenvat credit for inputs, capital goods, and input services used in their captive mines, specifically Bolani Mines, which provided iron ore to the Durgapur Steel Plant (DSP) and other units. The appellant argued that both DSP and Bolani Mines were part of an integrated unit and that the transfer of iron ore between them constituted a transfer within the same entity. The appellant relied on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vikram Cement, which allowed Cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods used in captive mines if they form an integrated unit with the manufacturing plant. The Tribunal found that the appellant's mines were indeed captive and integral to their manufacturing process, thus entitling them to Cenvat credit. 2. Legality of Bolani Mines as an Input Service Distributor (ISD): The appellant contended that Bolani Mines was legally registered as an ISD and distributed credit in compliance with Rule 7 of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The Tribunal examined whether Bolani Mines qualified as an ISD under Rule 2(l) and found that the appellant's interpretation was consistent with the rules. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had distributed the credit appropriately, supporting their claim with relevant legal precedents. 3. Validity of Cenvat Credit Availed and Utilized by the Appellant Against ISD Documents: The appellant asserted that the Cenvat credit availed and utilized against ISD documents issued by Bolani Mines was legal and valid. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the appellant had adhered to the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, and there was no evidence in the impugned orders or show cause notices to suggest otherwise. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's use of the credit was in line with the established legal framework. 4. Interpretation of the Term "Received in the Factory" Under Cenvat Credit Rules: A critical point of contention was the interpretation of the term "received in the factory" as it pertains to the eligibility for Cenvat credit. The appellant argued, supported by the Apex Court's decision in Madras Cements Ltd., that the requirement did not necessitate physical receipt within the factory premises if the inputs were used in a manner integral to the manufacturing process. The Tribunal upheld this interpretation, affirming that the appellant's use of inputs and capital goods in the captive mines satisfied the conditions for Cenvat credit eligibility. 5. Timeliness of Availing Cenvat Credit in Light of Rule 4(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules: The adjudicating authority had previously held that the appellant's availing of Cenvat credit was irregular due to the time gap between invoice dates and credit availing. The appellant countered this by citing Tribunal decisions that clarified the interpretation of "immediately" in Rule 4(1). The Tribunal found the appellant's argument persuasive, noting that the credit was availed within a reasonable timeframe and in accordance with legal precedents. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to avail Cenvat credit on inputs, capital goods, and input services used in their captive mines, as these were integral to their manufacturing process. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The decision reinforced the principles established by the Apex Court regarding the eligibility of Cenvat credit in the context of captive mining operations.
|
