Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2008 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (9) TMI 547 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Modvat credit in respect of capital goods 2. Availment of credit on the basis of invoices which are not pre-printed 3. Availment of credit without filing the declaration under Rule 57G Analysis: 1. Modvat credit in respect of capital goods: The Commissioner (Appeals) extended the benefit of Modvat credit to the appellant for various capital goods, citing Rule 57Q. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the case of M/s. Jawahar Mills Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore, affirmed by the Supreme Court, to support this decision. The Revenue argued that the definition of capital goods changed with Notification No. 14/96-C.E. (N.T.), dt. 23-7-96, limiting eligible goods to those directly involved in manufacturing. However, the Tribunal disagreed, citing the retrospective nature of the amendment as established in the case of M/s. J.K. Synthetics. Another appeal by Revenue on the same issue was previously rejected, further supporting the appellant's entitlement to credit under Rule 57Q. 2. Availment of credit on non-pre-printed invoices: The Revenue sought to deny Modvat credit due to invoices not being pre-printed or declarations not filed. However, it was acknowledged that the inputs were received by the appellant and duty paid. Rule 57G was amended to allow credit despite technicalities, as highlighted in the case of M/s. Kamakhya Steel (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut. Various judgments emphasized that procedural issues should not hinder credit availability if substantial conditions are met. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's argument on this point. 3. Availment of credit without filing Rule 57G declaration: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal on all three issues, emphasizing the appellant's entitlement to Modvat credit for capital goods and dismissing the Revenue's objections regarding procedural technicalities. The decision was based on legal precedents and interpretations of relevant rules and notifications. Ultimately, all appeals were dismissed on 12-9-2008.
|