2006 (5) TMI 341 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal denies exemption for Aluminium Jig Wires and Rods under Cenvat Credit Rules

NEEDLE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., SALEM

NEEDLE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., SALEM - 2006 (205) E.L.T. 776 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:1. Eligibility of Aluminium Jig Wires and Rods for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E.2. Classification of Aluminium Jig Wires and Rods as capital goods or inputs.3. Requirement of declaration for availment of Cenvat credit.4. Prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery.Eligibility of Aluminium Jig Wires and Rods for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E.: The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of Aluminium Jig Wires and Rods for exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. The lower authorities demanded duty amounts for specific periods, contending that the goods did not qualify as capital goods as per the Cenvat Credit Rules. The appellant argued that the Jig Wires and Rods should be considered intermediate products eligible for exemption under the said Notification. However, the respondent contested this claim, stating that only capital goods eligible for Modvat credit were exempted. Upon analysis, the Tribunal found that the Jig Wires and Rods did not fall within the definition of capital goods under Rule 2(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. Consequently, the benefit of the Notification was deemed inapplicable to these goods.Classification of Aluminium Jig Wires and Rods as capital goods or inputs: The primary issue revolved around whether the Aluminium Jig Wires and Rods manufactured in the appellant's factory could be classified as capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules. Despite being used in the production of final products, the Tribunal determined that these goods did not meet the criteria for Cenvatable capital goods as per Rule 2(b). The appellant's argument that the goods could be classified as either capital goods or inputs, without the need for declaration for Cenvat credit availment, was deemed irrelevant to the matter at hand. Ultimately, it was established that the Aluminium Jig Wires and Rods did not qualify as capital goods under the applicable rules.Requirement of declaration for availment of Cenvat credit: The appellant contended that there was no requirement for declaring the Aluminium Jig Wires and Rods as capital goods or inputs for Cenvat credit purposes. However, the Tribunal found this argument to be immaterial to the issue of whether the goods were eligible for the exemption under the Notification. The focus remained on the goods' classification and compliance with the relevant rules for exemption eligibility.Prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery: Despite the appellant not demonstrating a prima facie case for the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, the Tribunal adopted a lenient approach. The appellant was directed to pre-deposit only 50% of the total duty amount within a specified timeframe. This decision was made without the appellant claiming financial hardships, indicating a discretionary decision by the Tribunal to allow partial pre-deposit while awaiting compliance.