2005 (7) TMI 22 - AT - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat- Capital goods Lubricating oil and grease Appellants demand for credit on the ground that it is used in manufacture of 2/3 wheelers but credit denied by department- Adjudicating authority decided credit allowable.

Summary

Issues: Modvat credit denial for lubricating oils, greases, cutting oils, and coolants used as inputs; Applicability of Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944; Denial of credit based on use in 2/3 wheeler motor vehicles; Invocation of longer period of limitation; Appeal success on merits and limitation.

In the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, the issue revolved around the denial of Modvat credit amounting to Rs. 8,90,707 against the appellants for their use of lubricating oils, greases, cutting oils, and coolants as inputs in the manufacture of final products. The lower authority confirmed the denial on the basis that these items, declared as capital goods under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944, were used in 2/3 wheeler motor vehicles, which was deemed ineligible for credit. The demand was upheld by invoking a longer period of limitation, leading to penalty imposition.

The Tribunal considered both sides' arguments, represented by the Manager (Excise) for the appellants and the Ld. DR for the revenue. It was noted that during the relevant period, lubricating oils and greases fell within the ambit of Rule 57Q, allowing Modvat credit if used in the manufacturer's factory for final products. The appellants contended that greases were indeed used in their factory for manufacturing final products, even though they were utilized in 2/3 wheelers and not machinery. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, emphasizing that the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q did not exclude certain goods based on different uses. Since lubricating oils and greases were specified under Rule 57Q and used in the factory for final product manufacturing, the Modvat credit was deemed admissible, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.

Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the credit was availed after a declaration under Rule 57Q, and the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal limitation period, being raised on 5-7-1999 for the period 1-3-1997 to 31-8-1997. Consequently, the notice was considered time-barred, resulting in the appeal succeeding both on merits and limitation. The judgment was pronounced in court on 12-7-2005.