Appellant granted cenvat credit on capital goods sent for job work, emphasizes procedural compliance.

The Tribunal allowed the appellant-assessee to avail cenvat credit on capital goods sent to their sister unit for job work under Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules. The decision emphasized compliance with procedural requirements and movement of goods within the same Commissionerate, citing legal analysis and precedent in support. The impugned order was set aside, granting consequential relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues Involved:
- Availment of cenvat credit on capital goods not installed in registered premises
- Allegation of contravening provisions of Rule 4(2), Rule 9(5) of CCR 2004, and Section 11A of Central Excise Act
- Demand of recovery, interest, and penalty imposed by adjudicating authority
- Upholding of order by Commissioner (Appeals)
- Appeal before the Tribunal challenging the decision

Issue 1: Availment of Cenvat Credit on Capital Goods:
The appellant-assessee, engaged in manufacturing, faced allegations of availing cenvat credit on capital goods not present in their registered premises but installed in a sister unit. The show cause notice proposed a demand for recovery under Section 11A of Central Excise Act. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand with interest and penalty. The central question was whether the appellant was entitled to avail cenvat credit on capital goods sent to their sister unit for job work under Rule 4(5)(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules.

Issue 2: Allegation of Contravention of Rules and Provisions:
The Revenue contended that there was a contravention of Rule 4(2)(a) and Rule 9(5) of CCR 2004, leading to inadmissibility of the credit. The department discovered the movement of capital goods to the sister unit during an audit, invoking a longer period for scrutiny. The lower authorities upheld the inadmissibility of credit, and the Revenue argued for dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 3: Tribunal's Analysis and Decision:
The Tribunal analyzed the submissions from both sides and reviewed the case laws cited by the appellant. It emphasized that the movement of capital goods between the appellant's units within the same Commissionerate for manufacturing the final product was permissible under Rule 4(5)(a). The Tribunal referenced previous cases to support the appellant's position, highlighting the eligibility for cenvat credit on goods sent to a job worker and returned within the stipulated period. The Tribunal found the case laws cited by the appellant applicable and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment favored the appellant-assessee, allowing them to avail cenvat credit on capital goods sent to their sister unit for job work, as per Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. The decision highlighted the importance of compliance with procedural requirements and the movement of goods within the same Commissionerate. The legal analysis and precedent cited in the judgment supported the appellant's position, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and granting of consequential relief.

---