2025 (12) TMI 217 - AT - Central Excise

CENVAT credit on capital goods upheld once final products become dutiable, revenue appeal dismissed on earlier decision basis

Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Versus M/s. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd.

The CESTAT Kolkata dismissed the Revenue's appeal challenging admissibility of CENVAT credit on capital goods used to manufacture goods that were formerly ... Recovery of CENVAT Credit availed on capital goods on the ground that, per se, no CENVAT Credit could be taken for such capital goods which were used in the manufacture of exempted finished goods - HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res integra and stands squarely covered by the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the CESTAT in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara-I vide [2024 (6) TMI 1524 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] wherein the Bench has held that 'it is quite evident from the records produced by the appellant that the goods were manufactured on the capital goods meant for manufacture of Maaza pet bottle only from 29.03.2011 on that date the finished goods was admittedly dutiable as the exemption earlier provided for such final product was done away. With this fact vis a vis the observation made in this Tribunal's earlier order dated 08.03.2022, we are of the considered view that appellant are eligible for CENVAT Credit.' Finding that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the respondent, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether CENVAT credit on capital goods is deniable where, on the date of receipt of such capital goods, the intended final product was exempted, but at the time the capital goods were put to use, the final product had become dutiable. 1.2 Whether capital goods in such circumstances can be regarded as 'used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods' within the meaning of Rule 6(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 1.3 Whether the Tribunal's earlier decision and its affirmation by the High Court in relation to the same assessee, product, and period conclude the controversy and render the present dispute covered by precedent. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 & 2: Timing of eligibility for CENVAT credit on capital goods and meaning of 'used exclusively in the manufacture of exempted goods' under Rule 6(4) Legal framework (as discussed) 2.1 Rule 6(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 was considered, which restricts CENVAT credit on capital goods used 'exclusively' in the manufacture of exempted goods. The focus of interpretation was on: 2.1.1 The relevant point of time for determining credit eligibility on capital goods - whether it is the date of receipt/installation of capital goods or the date when such capital goods are put to use for manufacture. 2.1.2 The condition that capital goods must be 'used exclusively' for exempted goods to attract the bar under Rule 6(4). Interpretation and reasoning 2.2 The Tribunal adopted and relied upon the reasoning of the coordinate Bench (Ahmedabad) in the assessee's own case, which held that: 2.2.1 For purposes of Rule 6(4), the relevant date to determine whether capital goods are hit by the exclusion is the date of commencement of production on such capital goods, not the date of their receipt or installation. 2.2.2 The statutory language links the restriction to whether the capital goods are used 'exclusively' for exempted goods; hence, the factual position when the capital goods are actually put to use for manufacture is decisive. 2.3 It was noted that in the earlier decision, the Tribunal had examined the factual matrix and held that: 2.3.1 Although the capital goods were received when the finished product 'Maaza' was exempt, they were not used for manufacture of exempted goods during that period. 2.3.2 Production on the capital goods in question (meant for 'Maaza' in PET bottles) commenced only from 29.03.2011, by which date the finished product had become dutiable and the exemption had been withdrawn. 2.3.3 Consequently, the capital goods were never 'used exclusively' for manufacture of exempted goods, and the bar under Rule 6(4) did not apply. 2.4 The Tribunal distinguished the decision relied upon by Revenue (Surya Roshni Ltd.) on two principal grounds highlighted in the earlier Ahmedabad decision: 2.4.1 The decision had not attained finality before the higher courts; therefore, its binding value was limited as against the clear ratio already laid down in the assessee's own case. 2.4.2 On facts, in Surya Roshni, the same capital goods were actually used for a substantial period for manufacturing exempted goods before the product became dutiable, justifying the denial of credit. In contrast, in the present facts, the capital goods started production only after the product became dutiable, and were never used for exempted production. 2.5 The Tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating authority, in earlier remand proceedings, was required only to verify the factual aspects-namely, the date of commencement of production on the capital goods and whether the finished goods were exempted or dutiable on that date. Revisiting the legal issue at that stage was characterized as beyond the scope of remand. Conclusions 2.6 The Tribunal reaffirmed that, for Rule 6(4) purposes, the eligibility of CENVAT credit on capital goods is to be determined with reference to the date the capital goods are put to use for production. 2.7 Since, on the date of commencement of production on the capital goods in question, the finished goods were dutiable and the capital goods were never used exclusively for exempted goods, the bar under Rule 6(4) did not apply and CENVAT credit was legally admissible. 2.8 The Tribunal therefore upheld the dropping of proceedings by the adjudicating authority and rejected Revenue's argument that mere receipt of capital goods during an exemption period disentitled the assessee to credit. Issue 3: Effect of prior Tribunal and High Court decisions in the same assessee's case Interpretation and reasoning 3.1 The Tribunal observed that the precise question - whether the date of receipt or the date of commencement of production governs credit eligibility on capital goods where the status of the finished goods changes from exempted to dutiable - had already been decided by the coordinate Bench (Ahmedabad) in the assessee's own case. 3.2 That decision held that the date of production is determinative and that the assessee was entitled to credit as the capital goods were first used when the final product was dutiable. 3.3 The Tribunal recorded that the said decision was subsequently carried by Revenue before the jurisdictional High Court, which, after examining the Tribunal's factual findings (including the commencement of production on 29.03.2011 and the dutiable status of the product on that date), declined to interfere and held that no substantial question of law arose. 3.4 In light of this affirmation, the Tribunal held that the controversy is no longer 'res integra' and stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee, leaving no scope to re-agitate the same issue in the present appeal. Conclusions 3.5 The Tribunal concluded that the matter is fully covered by the earlier Tribunal decision and the High Court's order, and therefore Revenue's appeal could not be sustained. 3.6 The appeal filed by Revenue was dismissed, confirming the assessee's entitlement to CENVAT credit on the capital goods in question.