M/S. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Gurgaon ... vs C.C.E. Delhi-Iii
- CitationExcise Appeal No. E/51748 & 51749/2014 -Ex[DB]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Under Rule 2(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, the definition of capital goods is satisfied where the listed goods have been used in the factory of manufacture of the final product; the goods need not have been used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, and use in the factory for any purpose, including research and development, suffices to entitle the manufacturer to Cenvat credit on them.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Original No. 155/SA/CCE/2013 dated: 17.12.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi-III]
For approval and signature:
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Gurgaon Plant Appellant
M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Manesar Plant
Vs.
C.C.E. Delhi-III Respondent
Appearance:
Mr. K. Anandh, Advocate for the Appellants
Mr. Pramod Kumar Jain, DR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing/decision.15.01.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 50173-50174 /2015-Ex(Br)
Per Rakesh Kumar (for the Bench):
Heard both the sides.
2. The only issue involved in these appeals is as to whether the capital goods brought to the factory for R&D work during the period from March 08 to November 2012 would be eligible for Cenvat Credit or not. The Commissioner vide order in original dated 17.12.2013 holding that since the capital goods for R&D work cannot be treated as having been used in or in relation to manufacture of the final product, has denied the Capital Goods Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs. 9,97,38,882/- confirmed its demand along with interest thereon under section 11AB and has imposed penalty of equal amount on them under Rule 15(2) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. It is against this order of the Commissioner that these appeals have been filed.
3. The definition of capital goods in as given Rule 2(a) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 covers the goods listed in this sub Rule, which have been used in the factory of manufacture of final product. Thus, for capital goods Cenvat Credit, their use in or in relation to manufacture of final product is not required and their use in the factory of manufacture for the any purpose whether in or in relation to manufacture or for any other purpose including R&D would be enough for permitting the Cenvat Credit. In view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside. The appeals are allowed. The miscellaneous applications for early hearing filed by the Department are also dismissed as infructuous, as the matter has been disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Rakesh Kumar) (S.K. Mohnaty)
Member(Technical) Member(Judicial)
Neha
Page | 2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free