2013 (12) TMI 688 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of MODVAT credit Capital goods under Rule 57Q oferstwhile Central Excise Rules 1944 Waiver of pre-deposit Held that - The Commissioner (Appeals) apparently has not proceeded on the basis that the use of the goods claimed to be capital goods is irrelevant the Board s circular is prima facie of no significance - Prima facie the goods can be brought within the purview of the definition of capital goods under Rule 57Q as the rule stood during the material period - there will be waiver of pre-deposit till the disposal - stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery sought by the appellant regarding MODVAT credit denial for the period from November 1994 to December 1995.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery against the adjudged dues, including an amount of Rs.42,63,285/- being the MODVAT credit denied. The dispute revolved around the denial of MODVAT credit claimed by the appellant on various items categorized as 'capital goods' under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously held some items to be 'capital goods' but denied the classification for the remaining items after analyzing their use in the appellant's factory. The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to a circular by the Board clarifying that equipment not used within the factory would not qualify as 'capital goods' under Rule 57Q. The appellant argued that based on the Board's circular, the entire credit should have been allowed. On the other hand, the Additional Commissioner (AR) contended that many goods were not shown to be used in the manufacturing process or ancillary processes.

The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions and found that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not base the decision on the relevance of the use of goods claimed to be 'capital goods,' making the Board's circular not significant prima facie. Upon examining the manner of use of the items in question, the Tribunal prima facie held that the goods could be classified as 'capital goods' under Rule 57Q during the material period. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery as requested by the appellant.

This judgment highlights the importance of demonstrating the use of goods claimed as 'capital goods' for availing MODVAT credit under Rule 57Q. It also emphasizes the significance of circulars issued by the Board in interpreting relevant provisions. The decision underscores the Tribunal's authority to assess the classification of goods based on their actual use and the applicable rules during the disputed period.