2019 (7) TMI 394

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ide the said Order-in- Original, equivalent penalty has also been imposed with applicable interest.   2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant, M/s. Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of coal. Levy of Central Excise duty was imposed for the first time w.e.f. a1st March, 2011, through the Finance Act, 2011 wherein the Tariff rate of goods falling under Chapter 27.01 (i.e. 'Coal') was made 5% against the 'NIL' rate. Prior to the said rate, Coal had always been subject to 'NIL' rate of Central Excise duty. A concessional rate of central excise duty of 1% was also provided from the aforesaid date, if the assessee did not avail ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rded in the books on 17.06.2011 when the CENVAT credit was availed. He submitted that as per Rule 4(2)(a) of CCR, CENVAT credit can be availed in respect of capital goods received in a factory at any point of time in a given financial year. He placed reliance on the ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. v. CESTAT, Chennai [2016 (340) ELT 632 (Mad.)], wherein it has been observed that as per Rule 4(2)(a) of CCR, the assessee is liable to claim CENVAT Credit on capital goods at any time during the year subject to the condition that the goods to be manufactured out of them should not be exempted goods. Relevant para of the judgment is given below: "..26. Coming to the core iss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oods on a particular day, say for instance 1-10- 2003. If the goods are dutiable goods on the date of receipt, namely 1-10-2003, the Department agrees that the factory will be entitled to Cenvat credit. Suppose an exemption notification is issued on the date following the date of receipt of capital goods, he will still be entitled to the benefit of Cenvat credit. Therefore, to interpret Rule 4(2)(a) in a manner that will benefit a person, who receives the capital goods on the date, on which, the goods to be manufactured were dutiable, despite the same goods becoming exempted goods on the next day, but to deprive the benefit to a person, who manufactures dutiable goods on the basis of the capital goods received in a particular financial year....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s covered by the ruling of Madras High Court which is binding. The Ld. CA also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of H.S. Vankani & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2010) 4 SCC 301 to submit that it is a general rule of interpretation that a statute must not be construed in a way so as to lead absurdity, inconvenience or injustice. If the decision of Larger Bench in Spenta International is applied, which does not lay a correct legal position in view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Madras High Court, the appellant will be deprived from availing the benefit of CENVAT credit of duty paid on capital goods (excavators) used in the mines for production of coal on which central excise duty have been paid. The Ld.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al position has been settled by the Larger Bench in Spenta International's case (Supra), wherein it has been held that date of receipt of capital goods would be the date when eligibility to avail CENVAT credit will be decided. Since the appellant received the goods on 17.02.2011 on which date the final product, coal, was not subject to central excise duty, they are legally not eligible for credit. He submitted that the aforesaid Larger Bench decision is consistently being followed. He further relied on the decision of coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Ankit Roofings Pvt Ltd vs. CCE Jaipur 2016 (341) ELT 351 (Tri-Del) wherein the LB decision of Spenta International has been followed. He also submitted that the appellant is not....