ADHUNIK MEGHALAYA STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the order proposed to be made, the facts need not be noticed in any greater detail since the issues involved are primarily legal.

(2.) The essential facts have been recorded in the previous order of February 15, 2022, though the parties were left free to urge all grounds.

(3.) The appellant-assessee procured an Arc Furnace as capital goods for the purpose of its manufacturing unit that produces ferro silicate components which attract excise duty. However, by reason of the location of the manufacturing unit, the assessee is entitled to refund of the excise duty to the extent paid. The appellant was also entitled to obtain Cenvat credit for acquisition of capital goods used in its process of manufacture. However, in terms of Rule 3(5) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as such Rule stood at the relevant time, when any capital goods had been acquired and Cenvat credit obtained, if such capital goods were subsequently to be sold or transferred, the Cenvat credit had to be refunded.