Appellant wins appeal for CENVAT Credit on capital goods for granite and marble processing

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal regarding the denial of CENVAT Credit on capital goods for cutting, dressing, and polishing granite and marbles. The decision was based on the understanding at the time of procurement that the activity constituted manufacture, supported by previous judgments. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of this understanding in determining the eligibility of CENVAT Credit on capital goods, setting aside the previous order and granting the appeal with any necessary relief.

---

---

Issues:
1. Denial of CENVAT Credit on capital goods procured by the appellant.
2. Interpretation of the activity of cutting, dressing, and polishing of granite and marbles as manufacture.
3. Applicability of Rule 6(4) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.
4. Impact of the judgment in the case of Aman Marble Industries on CENVAT Credit.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the order denying CENVAT Credit on capital goods procured during the period of 2002 to 2003 for cutting, dressing, and polishing granite and marbles. The issue arose after a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Aman Marbles Industries clarified that such activities do not amount to manufacture. The Revenue sought to deny the credit, arguing that the final product was exempted, hence not excisable, and thus, CENVAT Credit on capital goods should be disallowed.

2. The appellant contended that at the time of availing the CENVAT Credit, both the Revenue and the appellant believed the activity constituted manufacture, as the final product was cleared on payment of duty. They relied on the judgment in the case of Aman Marble Industries and another case to support their claim that the activity indeed amounts to manufacture, justifying the CENVAT Credit taken on capital goods.

3. The appellant's argument was supported by the fact that the understanding at the time of procurement of capital goods was that the final product was dutiable and the activity was considered as manufacture by both parties. The issue arose post the Supreme Court judgment, where the duty paid on the final product was accepted, leading to the reversal of CENVAT Credit on capital goods. However, since the final product became duty-exempt, the remaining CENVAT Credit in the account was rendered useless. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellant correctly availed the CENVAT Credit on capital goods.

4. After hearing both parties and considering the submissions, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. The judgment emphasized the importance of the understanding at the time of procurement regarding the dutiability of the final product and the activity being classified as manufacture to determine the eligibility of CENVAT Credit on capital goods.

---