https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767455 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=767455 Wrongful availment of CENVAT credit on ineligible capital goods taken during the period May 2013 to March 2014 - capital goods or not - MS Angles, MS Plates, MS Channels, MS Sheets, and HR Bars, which are used as components and spares for machinery - HELD THAT:- Rule 2 (a) (A) (iii) merely stipulates that capital goods means components, spares and accessories of the goods specified at (i) and (ii). It does not contain any stipulation as to the chapter headings to which such components, spares and accessories should pertain. Thus, the definition of capital goods squarely covers components, spares and accessories of the goods falling under chapter 82, 84, 85, 90, heading number 68.05 grinding wheels and the like, and parts thereof falling under heading 6804 of the First schedule to the Excise Tariff Act and pollution control equipment. It is evident that in the absence of any prescribed headings to which such components, spares and accessories should pertain, the claim of the appellant that the impugned goods are covered under the definition of capital goods merits acceptance. This tribunal finds that the adjudicating authority has erred in rendering a finding that the appellants had raised contradictory claims. The adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate that the appellants had only claimed that the components, spares and accessories of the goods specified at (i) (ii) of the definition of capital goods as given at Rule 2 (a) (A), are chapter agnostic and are thus covered under the definition. It was never a contradictory claim as found by the adjudicating authority and such a finding as upheld by the appellate authority, is wholly untenable. This Tribunal also finds that it is settled law that the scope of entry components, spares and accessories in the definition of capital goods is not restricted to the components, spares and accessories falling under Chapter 82, 84, 85 or 90 of CETA, 1985 alone but covers all spares, components and accessories of specified goods irrespective of their classification under any chapter and is thus not chapter specific. The reliance placed by the Appellant on the decision in CCE ST Vs. India Cements Ltd., [ 2014 (7) TMI 881 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and India Cements Vs CESTAT, Chennai [ 2015 (3) TMI 661 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and Mangalam cement limited versus CC, Jaipur (1), [ 2018 (3) TMI 1547 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - LB] is apposite. The impugned order in appeal upholding the demand of the adjudicating authority and imposing penalty cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside. Conclusion - Irrespective of the classification of components, spares and accessories, when those are fitted to the machines/machineries of the above eligible Chapters, the same should also be considered as capital goods for availment of Cenvat credit of Central Excise duty paid thereon. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 18 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530