TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 662
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....25/- to Rs. 1,62,962/-. 2. The fact of the case is that the appellant availed CENVAT credit amounting to Rs. 2,66,025/- in respect of plastic crates, metal drawer, aluminium tray, welder chair, lamps and trolleys. show cause notice dated 10/05/2010 was issued to the appellant proposing denial of CENVAT credit on the ground that the material on which credit was availed are neither inputs nor capital goods as per the definition provided in CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. In adjudication, demand of CENVAT credit of Rs. 2,66,025/- was confirmed and equal amount of penalty was imposed under Section11AC and interest under Section 11AB was also confirmed. Being aggrieved by the adjudication order No. P-VII/CEX/ADJ./22/11-12 dated 23/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the welder and not used for any other purpose. As regards the trolley, he shown photographs from which it appears that the semi-finished machine parts are kept on the trolley. It is also clear from the photographs that the trolley is specially designed to keep the semi-finished machine parts on the trolley. Therefore, all these items are directly or indirectly used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final products. He submits that as per the definition of input if the input is used directly or indirectly whether it contained in the final products or not, CENVAT credit is allowed. These items though do not go directly in the finished goods but it is used during the process of manufacture and, therefore, the same is u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of Vikram Cement vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore 2009 (242) ELT 545 (Tri.-Del.). As regard the penalty he placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC) and Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur 2014 (307) ELT 348 (Tri.-Del.). 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. On going through the photographs produced by the learned counsel it is observed that all the items i.e. plastic crates is used for handling of the material, such as semi-finished goods in the factory of the appellant. The movement of semi-finished goods during the process of manufacturing is part of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld also be eligible for modvat credit as input." 6. From the above judgment as well as by considering the use of the plastic crates in the appellants factory, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled for the CENVAT credit on plastic crates. 7. As regards the trolleys, I find from the photographs that the trolley is specially designed to keep the machine parts which is used in the manufacture of their final products. The trolley is used as a material handling equipment within the factory during the process of manufacturing. The issue of eligibility to CENVAT credit on trolley has been dealt by the Tribunal in the case of Shinhan Plasto (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held as under: "3. Af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d under Heading 84.28 has to be accepted. In this view of the matter, CENVAT credit on material handling equipments must be held to be admissible to the assessee. It is ordered accordingly." 8. In view of the above judgment and considering the specific use of the trolley in the appellants factory, I have no doubt that the trolley is used in or in relation to the manufacturing process of final products. Therefore, in my considered view, CENVAT credit on trolley is rightly available. 9. As regards the welding table and welding chair, it is noticed that these items are used for by the welder while doing the welding process, which is an integral part of manufacturing process of the final products. The welding process on the compo....