9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (9) TMI 33 - HC - Central ExciseMODVAT / Cenvat Credit - Whether MODVAT, Credit of the duty paid in Tyre Protection Chain, falling under Heading 73.15 of the Central Excise Tariff, is available to the Respondents M/s.A.C.C., Ltd. under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Held that - the question so raised has been squarely has been squarely answered against the Revenue in Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s.A.C.C. Ltd (2008 -TMI - 48256 - HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH) - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Availability of MODVAT credit for duty paid in Tyre Protection Chain under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, challenging the appellate Tribunal's order regarding the availability of MODVAT credit for duty paid in Tyre Protection Chain under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The main question was whether M/s.A.C.C., Ltd. is entitled to such credit. 2. The Revenue contended that during the relevant period, only items used for producing or processing goods or bringing about changes in substances for manufacturing final products were considered capital goods. The issue was whether Protective Chain for tyres fell under the definition of capital goods during that period, considering they were not used for production or processing of goods and were not mentioned under the relevant clause of the explanation to Rule 57Q. 3. The Assistant Solicitor General of India argued that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the demand raised by the Collector was valid under the Act. 4. Justice R.B. Misra had previously addressed a similar issue in Excise Reference No.7 of 2000, Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s.A.C.C. Ltd., where the question was resolved against the Revenue. The judgment in that case was deemed applicable to the present situation. 5. Consequently, the High Court found no merit in the appeal and rejected it. The judgment from the previous case, Excise Reference No.7 of 2000, was directed to be included in the record of the current case for reference.
|
