Case Law Details
Indian Additives Limited Vs Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (CESTAT Delhi)
The definition of “capital goods” after 01.04.2016 does not exclude ‘any equipment or appliance used in an office’. For this reason, I hold that the credit availed by the appellant on the said computer server after 01.04.2016 would be eligible. It has also been stated by the appellant that these form an integral part of their manufacturing process as all the data is collected in the said server.
In regard to Housekeeping Services, the credit availed by the appellant has been disallowed alleging that these services are consumed in the Mumbai office. It is not in dispute that the Mumbai office is an integral part of the business of the appellant and is doing the administrative work in respect of the appellant’s factory. For this reason, I hold that the credit availed by the appellant on Housekeeping Services at their Mumbai office is eligible.
It is noted that the authorities below have imposed equal penalty on the appellant under Rule 15(2) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the issue being an interpretational one and the appellant having been eligible to avail the credit on the said capital goods after 01.04.2016 as well as the credit on Housekeeping Services, I am of the view that the penalty imposed requires to be set aside, which I hereby do.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
