9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (2) TMI 601 - HC - Central ExciseMODVAT Credit- The assessee availed MODVAT credit on the inputs used in in-house laboratory for the purpose of testing. The revenue denied the credit on the basis that inputs were not used in the manufacture of final products. Court held that the laboratory test is part of manufacturing process and allowed the credit.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility of Modvat credit for inputs used in in-house laboratory testing. 2. Retrospective effect of the amendment to Rule 57-O by Notification No. 8/93 dated 2-11-1993. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility of Modvat credit for inputs used in in-house laboratory testing: The primary issue is whether inputs used in in-house laboratory testing, which get scrapped during testing, qualify for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicant, engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles, uses various components that undergo destructive testing to ensure quality before being used in the final product. The remnants of these parts are cleared as scrap on payment of duty. The department contended that these parts, destroyed during testing, do not qualify for Modvat credit as they are not used in the manufacture of the final product. The applicant argued that testing is an integral part of the manufacturing process and essential for ensuring the quality of the final product. They relied on Rule 57A, which allows Modvat credit for all inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product, whether or not physically present in the finished goods. They cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI, CCE v. Rajasthan State Chemical Works, and J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Sales Tax Officer, which support a broad interpretation of the term "in relation to" in Rule 57A. The respondent countered that Modvat credit is only available for inputs actually used in the manufacture of the final product and not for those destroyed during testing. They argued that Rule 57D pertains to waste arising during manufacture, not pre-manufacture testing. The court considered relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedents. It emphasized the expansive interpretation of "in relation to" and noted the importance of quality control in the manufacturing process. The court concluded that laboratory testing is an integral part of manufacturing, and inputs used in such testing qualify for Modvat credit under Rule 57A. The location of the laboratory within the factory premises and the excisability of the finished goods further supported this conclusion. Thus, the court answered this issue in favor of the applicant. 2. Retrospective effect of the amendment to Rule 57-O by Notification No. 8/93 dated 2-11-1993: The second issue was whether the amendment to Rule 57-O by Notification No. 8/93, dated 2-11-1993, should be given retrospective effect from 1-3-1986. This amendment was argued to be classificatory in nature. The court did not provide a separate detailed analysis on this issue within the provided judgment text. However, it can be inferred that the court's primary focus was on the first issue regarding the eligibility of Modvat credit for inputs used in laboratory testing. The resolution of the first issue in favor of the applicant implicitly addressed the broader context of Modvat credit eligibility, potentially encompassing the retrospective effect of amendments aimed at clarifying credit eligibility criteria. Conclusion: The court concluded that inputs used in in-house laboratory testing, which get scrapped during testing, qualify for Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The testing process is integral to manufacturing, and the location of the laboratory within the factory premises satisfies the requirements of Rule 57A. The court answered the questions referred in favor of the applicant and against the Revenue.
|
