TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 378
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee should not avail Cenvat Credit in respect of inputs used into manufacture of excisable goods cleared under the said exemption notification. The appellant were receiving spare parts of capital goods which falls under the definition of "Capital Goods". However, as per the notification no.13/2016 C.E. (N.T.) dated 01.03.2016, the definition of "Input" was amended according to which all capital goods which have a value upto Rs.10,000/- per piece has been included in the definition of "Inputs". The appellant was under confusion whether the said spare parts are capital goods or inputs, accordingly, by taking precaution they sought clarification from the department as well as from the board. However, no response was given by the department. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ital goods which is not barred as per the notification No.30/2004-CE. Though the capital goods having value less than Rs.10,000/- is included in definition of "Input" but the same was not excluded from the definition of the "Capital Goods". Therefore, it is the option of the assessee whether he takescredit under the capital goods or inputs. Without prejudice, he further submits that now after the introduction of GST from 01.07.2017 the Cenvat Credit in the present cases are available as cash refund in terms of Section 142(3) of CGST Act read with the Section 11B of Central Excise Act. Therefore, the appellant is clearly entitled for the cash refund of the Cenvat Credit which is admissible to the appellant as submitted above. 3. Shri P Gane....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re parts of the capital goods are also covered under the capital goods. Therefore, in our considered view, it is the option of the assessee either to claim Cenvat Credit in respect of capital goods having a value upto Rs.10,000/- per piece either as capital goods or inputs. 4.1 It is settled law that when simultaneously two benefits are available to the assessee at a time then the more beneficial provisions should be extended to the assessee. In this regard, we take support of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of SHARE MEDICAL CARE vs. UNION OF INDIA, 2007 (209) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) in the said judgment the appellant"s claim of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated March 1, 1988 was denied. However, during the relevant period the go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s laid down thereunder have been fulfilled. The High Court also committed the same error and hence the order of the High Court also suffers from the same infirmity and is liable to be set aside." 4.2 The department might interpret the entry of capital goods vis-a-vis input as per amended definition of input and may contend that the spare parts having the value less than Rs.10,000/- of each piece is covered under inputs, therefore, spare parts are falling under inputs. In this regard, we find that so long the spare parts are also covered under capital goods and the same was not excluded, there is no doubt that the spare parts are falling under capital goods as well as input. Even in this situation, the more beneficial provision of capital g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on that the goods imported were optical time domain reflectometer. Optical time domain reflactometer are specifically described in Notification No.. 59/88-Cus., dt. 1-3-1988 which provided exemption to the goods specified in the Table annexed to that Notification No. 59/88-Cus., which was falling under Chapters 84, 85 or 90 of the Customs Tariff. The exemption was to the extent of the duty as was in excess of the amount calculated at the rate of 55% ad valorem. Subsequently, another Notification No. 96/91-Cus., dt. 25-7-1991 was issued which exempted the goods falling within the Chapters 82, 84, 85 and 90 of the Customs Tariff which was used in the electronic industries. The exemption available was to the extent of duty which was in excess ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....plicable to the goods in question. In one notification, the goods were specifically and categorically described while the description in another notification was general in nature. We consider that the case law will be applicable only when the two notifications are equally applicable to the goods and the manufacturer. The Supreme Court in an appeal filed by the assessee in HCL Limited v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 405 (S.C.) reversed the decision of CESTAT and held as under : "The question in these appeals is covered in favour of the appellant by the order of this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Indian Petro Chemicals [1997 (92) E.L.T. 13]. Where there are two exemption notifications that cover t....