Manufacturing company wins Cenvat credit case on capital goods and input services

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a manufacturing company, in a case involving demands of Cenvat credit on capital goods sold and input services used at another company. The Tribunal found that the sale of capital goods did not constitute a deemed removal as the goods remained within the factory premises and were used in manufacturing. Additionally, the credit on input services used at the other company was deemed valid as it was directly connected to the manufacturing process. Allegations of suppression of facts were dismissed, and the demands were considered time-barred. The Tribunal set aside the orders, allowed the appeals, and deemed the demands unsustainable, including any personal penalty imposed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Demand of Cenvat credit on capital goods sold to M/s. JK Envirotech Limited.
2. Demand of Cenvat credit on input services used at M/s. JK Envirotech Limited.
3. Allegations of suppression of facts and time-bar for the demand.

Summary:

1. Demand of Cenvat Credit on Capital Goods Sold to M/s. JK Envirotech Limited:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing paper products, sold a Lime Kiln plant to M/s. JK Envirotech Limited but retained its location within their factory premises. The department raised a demand under Rule 3(5A) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, arguing that the sale constituted a deemed removal of capital goods. The Tribunal found that since the Lime Kiln plant remained within the factory and was used in the manufacture of the final product, there was no physical removal of capital goods. Therefore, Rule 3(5A) was inapplicable. The Tribunal cited multiple judgments supporting that Cenvat credit cannot be demanded if capital goods remain installed and used within the factory premises despite a change in ownership.

2. Demand of Cenvat Credit on Input Services Used at M/s. JK Envirotech Limited:
The appellant availed Cenvat credit on input services billed to them but used at M/s. JK Envirotech Limited for converting lime sludge into lime, which was used in the appellant's final product. The Tribunal held that the service was directly connected to the manufacture of the final product, and since the billing was in the appellant's name, the conditions under Rule 2(l) defining input service were fulfilled. Consequently, the demand was not sustainable.

3. Allegations of Suppression of Facts and Time-Bar for the Demand:
The appellant had informed the department in 2008 about availing credit on the Lime Kiln plant sold to M/s. JK Envirotech Limited. The Tribunal found no suppression of facts as the sale was reflected in the balance sheet, and the department raised no objections initially. Therefore, the demand for the extended period was also unsustainable on the grounds of being time-barred.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowed all appeals, and ruled that the demands under Rule 3(5A) and for input services were not sustainable. The personal penalty imposed on the General Manager was also deemed unsustainable. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief in accordance with the law.

---