The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bengaluru, has held that imported aluminium panels used to assemble Mivan system formwork cannot be treated as “moulds” qualifying as capital goods under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 

The bench of P. A. Augustian (Judicial Member) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical Member) has allowed the department’s appeal, set aside the Commissioner’s order granting credit, and remanded the matter solely for deciding the issue of limitation. 

The dispute arose after a departmental audit found that M/s. Puravankara Projects Ltd. had availed CENVAT credit on imported aluminium articles classified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 7610. 

Buy Now: Customs Duty Judgements E-Compilation – June 2026

The Department contended that these goods were neither capital goods nor eligible inputs under the CENVAT Credit Rules because Chapter 76 goods are specifically excluded from the definition of capital goods. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued proposing recovery of the credit. 

The Commissioner had earlier ruled in favour of the assessee by holding that the imported aluminium panels functioned as “moulds” after assembly into Mivan system formwork used for casting concrete structures. On that basis, he concluded that the goods qualified as capital goods eligible for CENVAT credit, prompting the Revenue to challenge the order before the Tribunal. 

The department argued that the classification of imported goods must be determined based on their condition at the time of importation rather than their subsequent use. It maintained that the aluminium panels were correctly classified under CTH 7610 9090 as aluminium structures and not under Chapter 84, where moulds are specifically classified. The Department further submitted that merely assembling the panels into formwork after import could not alter their tariff classification or confer eligibility for CENVAT credit. 

The assessee argued that the imported items constituted specialised Mivan System Formwork used repeatedly as moulds for concrete construction. It relied upon the “functional test” evolved in judicial precedents, asserting that the repeated use and essential function of the assembled system established its character as a mould. The company also argued that the demand was barred by limitation because the show cause notice had been issued beyond the normal limitation period without any suppression of facts. 

After examining the tariff entries, the Tribunal observed that the imported goods had undisputedly been cleared under CTH 7610 as aluminium panels and not under Heading 8480 relating to moulds. Although HSN Explanatory Notes recognise moulds used for casting concrete, the Tribunal emphasised that the imported goods attained the character of a mould only after being assembled at the assessee’s premises. Consequently, the goods imported remained aluminium panels and could not be retrospectively treated as moulds merely because of their later use. 

The Bench stressed that the definition of “capital goods” under Rule 2(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules specifically excludes goods falling under Chapter 76 while separately including moulds and dies. Since what was imported were aluminium panels classified under Chapter 76, the benefit of CENVAT credit could not be extended by applying a functional or end-use test. According to the Tribunal, CENVAT eligibility has to be determined with reference to the goods as imported and not on the basis of the finished assembly subsequently created by the importer. 

In reaching its conclusion, the Tribunal relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Pioneer Embroideries Ltd.and Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Welkin Foods. It observed that these judgments reaffirm the “as imported” principle, under which classification depends upon the objective characteristics of goods at the time of importation unless the tariff entry itself permits consideration of end-use. Since Heading 7610 is an eo nomine entry describing aluminium structures without reference to intended use, subsequent assembly into concrete formwork could not alter the original classification. 

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner had erred in granting CENVAT credit by treating the imported aluminium panels as moulds. The impugned order was therefore set aside, and the Revenue’s appeal succeeded on merits. 

However, since the Commissioner had decided the matter entirely on merits and had not examined the question of limitation, the Tribunal remanded the case to the original adjudicating authority for a limited purpose—to determine whether the demand was barred by limitation. The respondent’s cross-objection was also disposed of in view of the remand. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Sale of Developed Land Not Taxable as ‘Real Estate Agency Service’: CESTAT