2008 (10) TMI 51 - AT - Central Excise

Rule 4(5)(a) CCR: 'as such' covers used and unused capital goods; reverse ITC when goods sent for repair, testing, reconditioning

MODERNOVA PLASTYLES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAIGAD

CESTAT, Mumbai (AT) held that the phrase 'as such' in Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR must not be confined to new or unused capital goods; doing so would render terms ... Interpretation of the expression “as such” appearing in Rule 4(5) (a) of CCR - removal of capital goods for repair - Held that:- If the expression 'as such' is held to cover only unused or new capital goods, manufacturers who wish to remove used capital goods to job workers' premises for testing, repairing reconditioning etc., would not be able to avail of the facility under Rule 4(5) (a). Further, if the expression 'as such' is interpreted to mean new or unused capital goods, then the question of testing, repairing or reconditioning them does not arise and the terms 'testing', 'repairing' and 'reconditioning' would become redundant, and any interpretation which results in rendering any portion of rule or legislation redundant, should be avoided, as held by the apex court in Amrit Paper v. CCE, Ludhiana [2006 (7) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] and Rajesh Kumar Sharma v. UOI [2007 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT]. We answer the question referred to us by holding that reversal of credit availed on capital goods is required when capital goods are removed, whether used or not. Issues:Interpretation of the expression 'as such' in Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.Analysis:1. The issue at hand pertains to the interpretation of the expression 'as such' in Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The Tribunal deliberated on the meaning of 'as such,' emphasizing that it refers to the goods in their original form without any addition, alteration, or modification. The expression does not differentiate between new/unused and used products. Reference was made to the case of BILT Industrial Packaging Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Salem, highlighting the evolution of the expression from distinguishing between 'without being used' and 'after being used' to the unified term 'as such.' The Tribunal concluded that the term encompasses both new and used capital goods, ensuring manufacturers can avail of benefits under Rule 4(5)(a) for various purposes like testing, repairing, or reconditioning, without rendering any part of the rule redundant.2. The Tribunal also addressed the decision in Cummins India Ltd. v. CCE, Pune-III, which focused on Rule 3(4)(c) and did not directly consider Rule 4(5)(a). Therefore, it was deemed insufficient to cover the specific issue under consideration regarding the interpretation of 'as such.'3. The case of Max India Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh was cited to illustrate a scenario where used capital goods were exported for repairs, leading to a dispute over the reversal of credit under Rule 3(4) versus the application of Rule 4(5)(a). The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessees, emphasizing that even used capital goods fall under the purview of the expression 'as such,' as per Rules 3(4)(c) and 4(5)(a).4. Ultimately, the Tribunal resolved the issue by affirming that the reversal of credit on capital goods is mandatory upon their removal, irrespective of whether they are used or new. This decision clarifies the applicability of Rule 4(5)(a) in cases involving the removal and subsequent return of capital goods for various purposes, ensuring consistency in the treatment of credits under the Cenvat Credit Rules.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the nuanced interpretation of the legal provisions and their practical implications in the context of Cenvat Credit Rules, providing clarity on the treatment of capital goods under the specified rules.