TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 885
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ital goods have been used in the manufacture of exempted goods i.e. briquette classified under Tariff Item 2701 20, which attracts NIL rate of duty. The same is not eligible under Rule 6 (4) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (All 3 SCNs.) b) That some of the itmes listed in Annexure- B to the SCN are not covered by the definition of capital goods under Rule 2 (a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 although credit has been availed on such items under Rule 2 (a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules,2004. [Only in SCN dated 30.12.2009 and 18.10.2010] 1.2 The 3 Show cause notices were adjudicated by the Learned Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhavnagar by 3 separate Order in original, wherein demands of cenvat credit on capital goods were confirmed. Being aggrieved by the Orders in Original, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who has rejected the appeals and upheld the demand confirmed by the Learned Joint Commissioner. Both the lower authorities have denied the cenvat credit on capital goods on the ground that the capital goods is exclusively used in manufacture of briquettes which is exempted from central excise duty. Therefore, in terms of Rule 6 (4) of CCR, 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ision is applicable only when the final product in which the capital goods is used is exclusively, cleared under exemption. This issue has been considered in the various judgment cited by the appellant which are referred below: Ispat Metallics Ltd vs. CCE Raigad- 2005 (191) ELT 1107 (Tri. Mum) "Heard both sides and considered the issue. 1.2. issue is The case eligibility of Capital goods entitled and credit on "Coal Briquette Plant" where the appellants converted Iron Ore fines received on job work under Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Rules from M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd. and returned the Briquette, for further use there for manufacture of Iron & Steel Products. 1.3. being Credit is denied on the grounds :- I have perused the case records and considered the arguments advanced in the appeal memorandum and reiterated at the time of personal hearing. The dispute lies in a narrow compass. The only point involved is whether the appellants were entitled to take capital goods credit on machine used for manufacture of non-dutiable goods. The appellants were using the said machine for making briquettes from fine ore which does not amount to manufacture. This aspect is not in dispute. The c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., spares and accessories of the goods specified at (i) and (ii) above; (iv) moulds and dies; (v) refractories and refractory materials; (vi) tubes and pipes and fittings thereof; and (vii) storage tank, used in the factory of the manufacturer of the final products but does not include any equipment or appliance used in the office". Thus "Coal Briquette Plant" could not be excluded from the definition. (b) The term "used in the factory of the manufacture of the final products"..... could not mean an exclusive or only use, for the manufacture of final products of the availer of the credit. So long as the entity is required to be used in the factory of the final product manufacturer, the machinery/plant would be eligible. When read with Rule 6(4) of the Cenvat Rules, the credit could not be denied even if the use is for manufacture of non-excisable entity eg. Electricity generated in the Power House Plant in case of Power House Capital Goods. Therefore, even if the process of conversion of Iron ore „fines‟ to „Briquettes‟ does not amount to manufacture of excisable goods under the Central Excise law, the credit cannot be denied. (c) After determ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....above cannot be brought and sold in the market and is not a commodity which is known in the trade." 7. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the substantial question of law are answered against the revenue and the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed." The similar issue was further considered by the this Tribunal in case of Commissioner of Vs. Narasus Spinning Mills[2005(128) ECR 187(Tri. Chennai)] and in case of Thuran Spining Mills Vs. Commissioner(2004(61) RLT 915(Cestat Che)] The Tribunal held that the Cenvat credit on capital goods used for producing silver cotton carded falling under chapter 52.02 is admissible under Rule 570. Both the above decisions of the Tribunal were upheld by the Hon'ble Madras High Court reported as [2016(334) ELT A163(Mad.)] and 2016(335) ELT A76(Mad)]. 7. As per above consistent decisions on the very same issue, the appellant is entitle for the credit on the capital goods used for manufacture of intermediate goods i.e. silver, cotton carded which was further used in the manufacture of dutiable cotton yam. As per the above settled legal position, impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed." CCE vs. United Phosphorous Ltd -2015 (315) ELT ....