Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether CENVAT credit was admissible on the disputed items claimed as capital goods or inputs, including whether Aviation Turbine Fuel was eligible for credit.
Analysis: The disputed items such as Aqueous Film Forming Foam, umbrella structure, aluminium coil, caustic soda lye, paints, hydrazine hydrate, chemicals, liquid nitrogen and transformer oil were found to be used in or in relation to the assessee's manufacturing activities, including pre-commissioning, firefighting, insulation, cleaning, maintenance and process support. On that basis, the denial of credit on those items was held to be unjustified. Aviation Turbine Fuel stood on a different footing because the definition of inputs expressly excluded the relevant petroleum products category, and the use claimed for quality testing did not overcome that exclusion.
Conclusion: CENVAT credit was allowed on all disputed items except Aviation Turbine Fuel, on which credit, interest and penalty were sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Goods used in or in relation to the manufacturing process, including commissioning support, maintenance, insulation and cleaning, may qualify for CENVAT credit as inputs or eligible capital goods, but credit cannot be allowed where the statutory definition of inputs expressly excludes the item.