2015 (11) TMI 1689 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal overturns denial of Cenvat credit on rock bolts, citing capital goods nature.

Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Versus Commissioner of C. Ex. & S.T., Jaipur-II

The Tribunal allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant, overturning the impugned orders that denied Cenvat credit on rock bolts. It held that the rock ... CENVAT credit - inputs/capital goods - rock bolt - Held that: - The term “fixtures” is finding place in the definition of capital goods for the purpose of availment of Cenvat credit. Since by nature of use of the disputed goods, the same is to be considered as fixtures and the same is categorized as capital goods in the definition clause, in my opinion, denial of Cenvat credit is not proper and justified - It is an admitted fact on record that the mines where the disputed goods have been used is the captive mine of the appellant, solely dedicated for the purpose of the appellant - credit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Denial of Cenvat credit on rock bolts under the head capital goods.Analysis:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Lead, Zinc, and other concentrates, availed Cenvat credit on rock bolts used as support for mining walls. The authorities denied the credit, stating the goods did not meet the definition of capital goods or inputs and were used outside the factory. The appellant argued rock bolts were fixtures falling under the capital goods definition, citing an adjudication order and relevant case laws. The respondent reiterated the impugned order findings.The Tribunal noted the Adjudicating Authority's previous ruling that rock bolts were fixtures, aligning with the capital goods definition. The Tribunal found denial of Cenvat credit unjustified, considering the nature of use and categorization as capital goods. Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in Vikram Cement case, it held that if mines are captive and integral with the factory, Cenvat credit on capital goods should be available. As the disputed goods were used in the appellant's captive mine, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, overturning the impugned orders.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals in favor of the appellant based on the nature of the disputed goods as fixtures falling under the capital goods definition and their use in the captive mine, as per the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the Vikram Cement case.