Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2005 (9) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2005 (9) TMI 447 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
Classification of imported capital goods for availing Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the classification of imported capital goods, specifically 'wood pattern,' for availing Modvat credit of countervailing duty (CVD) under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The item was initially classified under sub-heading 4413.00 of the Customs Tariff Act but was declared by the assessee under sub-heading 8480.00 in the Modvat declaration. The department contended that goods under heading 44.09 of the Central Excise Tariff Act were not covered as 'capital goods' under Rule 57Q, leading to a show cause notice disallowing the credit of CVD. The original authority disallowed the credit and imposed a penalty, which was challenged by the assessee in appeal.

The first appellate authority overturned the decision of the lower authority and allowed the credit to the assessee, prompting the Revenue to file this appeal. Despite no representation from the respondents, the appellate tribunal examined the records and heard the ld. SDR. The tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly classified the imported capital goods under Heading 84.80 of the CETA Schedule, which specifically includes moulding patterns. It was noted that Chapter 44 excludes goods covered under Section XVI, where Chapter 84 falls. The tribunal affirmed that the capital goods falling under Heading 84.80 were within the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q at the relevant time in August 1996.

Consequently, the tribunal upheld the decision of the lower appellate authority, emphasizing that there was no justification to interfere with the order. The appeal of the Revenue was rejected, and the operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 14-9-2005.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates