Cenvat credit on business furniture may be allowed as input where no express statutory exclusion applies.

Furniture classified under Chapter 94 was not covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, but the Cenvat scheme did not impose a statutory bar on credit merely for that reason. Where the furniture was purchased for business use and duty had been paid, it could still be treated as input for Cenvat purposes in the absence of any express exclusion. On that basis, denial of Cenvat credit was held unsustainable and credit was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Cenvat credit on furniture could be denied on the ground that it was not covered as capital goods under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and whether such furniture could nonetheless be treated as inputs for availment of credit.

Analysis: The furniture was classified under Chapter 94 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and was not specifically included within the definition of capital goods under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. However, the governing Cenvat scheme permits credit of duty paid on inputs or capital goods for utilisation against duty liability, and there was no statutory embargo excluding such credit merely because the goods did not satisfy the capital goods definition. The furniture had been purchased for the appellant's business use, and in the absence of a prohibition in the statute, it could be treated as input for Cenvat purposes.

Conclusion: The denial of Cenvat credit was unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant.

---