9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 1044 - AT - Central Excise
Issues involved: Dispute over modvat credit claims, retrospective effect of Notification No. 14/96-C.E., admissibility of modvat credit on steel tubes & pipes, and refractories installed prior to 23-7-1996.
Admissibility of modvat credit: The appeal by the Revenue challenged the allowance of modvat credits by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to the respondent, based on the retrospective effect of Notification No. 14/96-C.E. The ld. Jt. CDR argued that the notification had only prospective effect, thus no modvat credit should have been allowed for goods received before 23-7-1996. The Tribunal found that the goods in question were capital goods even before the specified date, making modvat credit admissible. The lower appellate authority correctly concluded that the specific mention of goods post-23-7-1996 did not negate the pre-existing benefit under the rule. The Tribunal upheld the decision, citing relevant case law and emphasizing the admissibility of modvat credit for the goods in question. Installation of steel tubes & pipes in jetty: The dispute arose regarding the modvat credit for steel tubes & pipes installed in a jetty away from the factory. The respondent argued that the jetty was part of their factory, supported by registration certificates and factory plans. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this argument, ruling that the goods installed in the jetty were indeed part of the factory and eligible for modvat credit. The Tribunal noted the absence of a challenge to this crucial finding of fact and upheld the decision, supported by relevant case law. Application of case law: The Tribunal distinguished the case cited by the ld. Jt. CDR, emphasizing that while the notification in question was not retrospective, it did not affect the admissibility of modvat credit for capital goods. The decision in the present case was based on the modvatability of capital goods, not the applicability of the notification. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, affirming the admissibility of modvat credit for the goods in question.
|
