9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (8) TMI 553 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Entitlement to Modvat credit on Drill rods/pipes and Drill bits supplied with Drilling rigs. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore, regarding the entitlement of Modvat credit on Drill rods/pipes and Drill bits supplied with Drilling rigs. The appellants, manufacturers of various equipment, contended that the duty on the accessories was paid and included in the assessable value of the Drilling rigs, making them eligible for Modvat credit. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for reconsideration. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the earlier decision, citing a CEGAT order and a Supreme Court decision that ruled the accessories were not part of the Drilling rigs. The appellants challenged this decision before the Tribunal. The learned Advocate for the appellants argued that the impugned items were integral parts of the Drilling rigs, and the value of these items was included in the final product's value on which duty was paid. Therefore, they claimed entitlement to Modvat credit on the duty paid for these items. The learned SDR reiterated the points made in the Order-in-Appeal. Upon careful review of the case records, the Tribunal observed that the impugned items were purchased from the open market and supplied with the Drilling rigs. While previous decisions confirmed that these items were not parts of the Drilling rigs, Rule 57A(i)(e) allowed accessories cleared along with the final product to be included in the assessable value for Modvat credit. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to Modvat credit equal to the duty paid on the impugned goods, as their value was indeed included in the final products. The Tribunal emphasized that previous decisions regarding the nature of the items did not address the Modvat credit issue, and the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in relying on them. Consequently, the appeal of the appellants was allowed with consequential relief.
|
