2014 (5) TMI 908 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal affirms CENVAT Credit for Hydrogen Cylinders use in factory.

Commissioner of Central Excise & ST., Daman Versus M/s. Aarti Industries Limited

Commissioner of Central Excise & ST., Daman Versus M/s. Aarti Industries Limited - 2014 (307) E.L.T. 553 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:CENVAT Credit on Hydrogen Cylinders - Use in factory, Installation requirement, Capital Goods definition, Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, Scope of show cause notice, Revenue neutral exercise.Analysis:1. CENVAT Credit on Capital Goods Use in Factory:The case involved a dispute regarding the availing of CENVAT Credit on Hydrogen Cylinders by the respondent for use in their factory. The Revenue objected to the credit, arguing that the cylinders were not installed in the factory. However, the respondent contended that the cylinders were directly used in the manufacture of final products, satisfying the conditions under Rule 2(a)(A) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal agreed with the respondent, noting that the requirement was the use of capital goods within the factory, not their installation. The temporary movement of cylinders for refilling did not negate their use within the factory, fulfilling the rule's criteria.2. Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules:The Tribunal also considered Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, which allowed for the movement of inputs or capital goods to a job worker and their subsequent return within a specified period. The rule permitted the taking of CENVAT credit again upon the return of the goods. In this case, the temporary movement of Hydrogen Gas Cylinders for refilling purposes fell within the provisions of this rule, further supporting the respondent's position.3. Scope of Show Cause Notice and Revenue Neutral Exercise:The respondent argued that the appeal proceedings should not exceed the scope of the show cause notice, emphasizing that the reversal and re-availment of credit for the cylinders was a revenue-neutral exercise. The Tribunal acknowledged these arguments and concluded that such exercises did not impact revenue collection. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected based on the observations made during the proceedings.In summary, the Tribunal upheld the respondent's right to claim CENVAT Credit on the Hydrogen Cylinders, emphasizing their use in the factory for the manufacture of final products, in accordance with the relevant rules. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the provisions of Rule 4(5)(a) and the revenue-neutral nature of the credit reversal exercise, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.