Denial of Cenvat credit on power press movement within assessee's units deemed unjustified by Tribunal.

The denial of Cenvat credit on a power press shifted between two units of the same assessee was deemed unjustified by the Tribunal. The discrepancy between the unit where credit was availed and the physical location of the machine did not warrant denial of credit. Precedents highlighted that movement of capital goods between units of the same assessee should not lead to credit denial. Additionally, the Tribunal found no evidence of suppression or misstatement by the appellant, leading to the conclusion that the extended period for raising and confirming the demand was not applicable. As a result, the appeal was allowed on merits and limitation, providing relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Denial of Cenvat credit on a power press shifted between two units of the same assessee.
2. Justification for denial of credit based on the location of the capital goods.
3. Application of the longer period of limitation for raising and confirming the demand.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing tractor parts, purchased a power press in the name of Unit-I but availed the credit in the name of Unit-II. The power press was shifted to Unit-I, which was exclusively doing job work for Unit-II. The denial of credit was based on the discrepancy between the unit where credit was availed and the physical location of the machine.

2. The Tribunal referred to various decisions to establish that denial of Cenvat credit for capital goods due to installation at a job worker's premises, belonging to the same assessee, is not justified. Precedents like S.G. Zaveri Pharmapack and Pooja Forge Ltd. emphasized that movement of capital goods between units of the same assessee should not be a ground for denial of credit. The Tribunal concluded that since both Unit-I and Unit-II belonged to the same assessee, denial of credit was not justified.

3. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of the longer period of limitation invoked for raising and confirming the demand. It noted that the appellant had reflected the credit in statutory records and filed statutory returns, indicating a bona fide belief in entitlement to the credit. The Tribunal found no evidence of suppression or misstatement by the appellant, leading to the view that the extended period was not available to the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on merits and limitation, providing relief to the appellant.

---