TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of credit. The Tribunal held that the interpretation adopted by the Revenue would defeat the very legislative intent of allowing credit in respect of capital goods. Similar findings were recorded earlier in the case of Kalyani Seamless Tubes Ltd. (2004 (8) TMI 217 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ). Considering the above settled position we find no ground for disallowing the credit availed by the appellant in respect of capital goods taken on lease. Regarding denial of credit on certain items of structural steel on the grounds that they do not fall under the definition of capital goods, we find that no categorical finding with specific items and quantum of credit attributable to such items have been made. Considering the credit on these items have alr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e two units who supplied capital goods on lease basis have on original procurement availed Cenvat Credit on these various capital goods which has not been objected to by the Department. There is no pending issue on such availment of credit by these two units. They have acquired these capital goods on lease and Rule 4 (3) cannot be read to mean that such lease should be only from finance company. They have relied on the following case laws in their support: 1) Leamak Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE Goa-2010 (259) ELT 554 (Tri-Amd). 2) Wimplast Ltd. Vs. CCE Daman-2014 (310) ELT 886 (Tri-Amd) 3) CCE Pune Vs. Kalyani Seamless Tubes Ltd.-2004 (176) ELT 899 (Tri-Mum). 3. It was contended by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on lease basis from other two entities involved in manufacturing activity is correctly taken or not. The Revenues contention is that in terms of Rule 4(3) Cenvat Credit in respect of capital goods shall be allowed to a manufacturer if the capital goods are procured on lease, hire purchase or loan agreement from a financing company. Since the persons who leased out these capital goods in the present case are not admittedly, finance companies, the credit is not available. We have noted that this matter has come up for decision in a few cases before this Tribunal. In the case of Leamak Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) the Tribunal held that the Rule 4(3) only further enlarges scope by stating that the credit would not be disallowed even if cap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
