2001 (9) TMI 601 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Modvat credit admissibility on Indwool Ceramic Fibre Blanket as capital goods.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Commissioner (Appeals) order allowing Modvat credit on Indwool Ceramic Fibre Blanket, citing the decision in the case of M/s. Comet Steels. The respondents, who manufacture steel castings, were availing credit of duty paid on inputs and capital goods under Rules 57G and 57Q. The Assistant Collector initially denied Modvat credit on the blankets, leading to the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied on previous Tribunal decisions and allowed the credit, prompting the current appeal.

2. The appellant argued that the Indwool Ceramic Fibre Blanket was not an integral part or accessory of the furnace, nor was it classified as refractory material. They contended that the item was a consumable used for lining the furnace, not part of the machinery, and was not covered under the definition of refractory material. The appellant reiterated the Assistant Commissioner's findings in this regard.

3. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the blankets were essential for controlling heat and preventing leakage in the furnace, making them an accessory of the annealing furnace. They claimed that furnaces and their accessories, components, and parts were considered capital goods for Modvat credit purposes. Citing previous Tribunal decisions, the respondent supported their argument for the admissibility of Modvat credit on the blankets.

4. After considering the submissions and case law, the judge noted that the blankets served as lining material in the furnace, preventing heat loss and ensuring optimal manufacturing conditions. The judge concluded that the blankets were integral parts or accessories of the furnace and played a crucial role in the manufacturing process. Following the precedent set by previous Tribunal decisions, the judge upheld the admissibility of Modvat credit on Indwool Ceramic Fibre Blanket. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, the appeal was rejected, and the cross objections were disposed of accordingly.