2019 (1) TMI 1105 – CESTAT MUMBAI – TMI – CENVAT Credit – capital goods or not – Furniture – Cenvat benefit was denied by the department on the ground that ‘furniture’ classifiable under Chapter 94 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 has not been specified as capital goods – Held that:- In this case, the furniture purchased by the appellant for its business purpose, though is not confirming to the definition of capital goods, but the same should be considered as input, in absence of any restrictions provided in the statute – credit allowed – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant. – ST/87083/2018 – A/88123/2018 – Dated:- 11-10-2018 – Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant : Shri Chirag Shetty, Advocate For the Res
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
take Cenvat Credit of Central Excise duty paid on inputs or capital goods, with the objective that such credit should be utilised for payment of central excise duty on the final product cleared from the factory. There is no specific embargo in the Cenvat statute that credit taken on capital goods can only be used/utilised for payment of duty. The credit availed on the inputs can also be utilised for the said purpose. In this case, the furniture purchased by the appellant for its business purpose, though is not confirming to the definition of capital goods, but the same should be considered as input, in absence of any restrictions provided in the statute. I find that in identical situation, this Tribunal in the case of ICICI Lombard General
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =