TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 525
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nclude any equipment or appliance used in an office. I find that this item was excluded from the definition of capital goods at the material time. Further, the said goods also do not fall within the ambit of definition of inputs. I find that in view of the specific exclusion of "office equipments/appliances" from the coverage of 'capital goods' defined under Rule 2(a)(A) during the relevant period CENVAT credit on printers and cartridges is not admissible to the appellant. Further, it has been contended by the appellant that in the SCN, no evidences are placed on record to show that the said goods have been used directly or indirectly in the manufacture of final product. In this regard I find that Rule 9(5) of the CENVAT credit Rules 2004 provide that "the burden of proof regarding the admissibility of the CENVAT credit shall lie upon the manufacturer or provider of output service taking such credit." In view of the discussions supra, I have no substantive reason to interfere in the decision of the adjudicating authority in this issue. C. Regarding third issue. CENVAT credit on corrugated boxes which were delivered at Lawrence Road, Delhi instead of their factory p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red as a part of printer without which printer cannot function. • He further submits that definition of capital goods is quite enough to include components, spares and accessories of goods of Chapter 82, 84, 85 and 90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Computer printer classifiable under Chapter 84 so its parts i.e. cartridge being components accessories or printers also is to be treated as capital goods. He refers to CBEC Circular No.943/04/2011-CX dated 29.04.2011. He further submits that credit of capital goods used in the factory is to be allowed without any relationship with the process of manufacture of the finalized products. • In any case these printers are used for maintaining the essential documents, generation of invoices for the clearance of the goods and hence are used in or in relation to the manufacture of the finished products. • The packing materials which is delivered to the warehouses at Lawrence Road, Delhi were used for packing the finished goods i.e. sugar initially cleared by them in small packets packed in corrugated boxes. • Hon'ble Supreme Court has in case of Vikram Cement Vs CCE, Indore 2006 (194) ELT 3 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 64,688/- is not admissible to the party." 4.4 It seems that Original Authority has not rendered any finding in respect of the printers on which credit has been denied amounting to Rs.29,341/-. 4.5 Challenging the findings recorded in the impugned order for denial of the credit in respect of printers and cartridge counsel for appellant submits that these goods were essential for the production of the finished goods. Further these are part and accessories of the goods classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and hence the credit in respect of these goods is admissible. He relied on the clarification given by the board at Sr. No.3. The same is reproduced bellow:- S.No. Issue Clarification 1 ......................... ......................... 2 .................... ......................... 3 How is the "no relationship whatsoever with the manufacture of a final product" to be determined? Credit of all goods used in the factory is allowed except in so far as it is specifically denied. The expression "no relationship whatsoever with the manufacture of a final product" must be interpreted and applied strictly and not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sel for the appellant has argued that this exclusion does not apply to a provider of output service and, therefore, the printers used by the appellant are liable to be treated as 'capital goods'. The learned JCDR has argued that, though the item is covered by Chapter 84 specified in sub-clause (i) of Rule 2(a)(A), it will not fall within the ambit of the definition of 'capital goods' as there is no direct nexus between this item and the output service provided by the appellant. The appellant has not established sufficient nexus between printers and their output service. There is substance in this submission. The appellant has not proved that the printers were used for the purpose of providing mobile telephone service." Affirming this decision Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as follows: "21. A plain reading of the definition of 'capital goods' as defined under Rule 2(a)(A) of the Credit Rules show that all goods falling under Chapter 82, Chapter 84, Chapter 85, Chapter 90, Heading No. 6805, grinding wheels and the like, and parts thereof falling under Heading 6804 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; pollution control equipments; components, spares and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... would be eligible for credit. The goods in question in any case cannot be held to be capital goods for the purpose of Cenvat credit as they are neither components, spares and accessories of goods falling under any of the chapters or headings of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule as specified in sub-clause (i) of the definition of capital goods. Hence a combined reading of sub-clauses (a)(A) (i) and (iii) and sub-rule (2) indicates that only the category of goods in Rule 2(a)(A) falling under clause (i) and (iii) used for providing output services can only qualify as capital goods and none other. Admittedly the goods in question namely the tower and part thereof, the PFB and the printers do not fall within the definition of capital goods and hence the appellants cannot claim the credit of duty paid on these items. Even applying the ratio of the judgments as relied upon by the appellants as observed above the said goods in the present context cannot be classified as capital goods. 32. As regards second contention of the appellants that the tower and part thereof, the PFB and the printers would also falls under the definition of 'input' as defined under Rule 2(k) also cannot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court declares the law on the question arising for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the Court to direct that the circular should be given effect to and not the view expressed in a decision of this Court or the High Court. So far as the clarifications/circulars issued by the Central Government and of the State Government are concerned they represent merely their understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not binding upon the court. It is for the Court to declare what the particular provision of statute says and it is not for the Executive. Looked at from another angle, a circular which is contrary to the statutory provisions has really no existence in law." 4.7 In respect of the Cenvat credit on the packing material which was delivered at the warehouses located at Lawrence Road, Delhi. I do not find much justification in the order, it is settled principle in law till the time it can establish that the inputs were used in or in relation to manufacture and clearance of the finished products. The Cenvat credit in respect of the same cannot be denied. It is also the depot has been considered as the place of the clearance for the excisable goods, warehouse where....