2007 (11) TMI 23 - SC - Central Excise

Cenvat/Modvat Appellant claimed the modvat credit on purchased equipment loadall classify it under heading 84.27 but denied by the Dy. Commissioner on the ground that said equipment classify by the manufacturer under Heading 84.29 - Penalty sustained and no new plea of appellant entertained by the SC

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Classification of the item 'Loadall' under Heading 84.29 or 84.27.
3. Imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q(bb) of the Rules.
4. Appeal against the Tribunal's decision and imposition of penalty.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Disallowance of Modvat credit under Rule 57Q
The appellant purchased 'Loadall' with excise duty included and claimed Modvat credit under Rule 57Q. The Dy. Commissioner disallowed the credit, stating that Heading 84.29 was excluded from the definition of "capital goods." However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found 'Loadall' to be an improved material handling equipment falling under Heading 84.27, making the appellant eligible for the credit. The Tribunal overturned this decision, upholding the original disallowance based on the manufacturer's classification under Heading 84.29.

Issue 2: Classification of 'Loadall'
The Tribunal held that the appellant could not change the manufacturer's classification of 'Loadall' from Heading 84.29 to 84.27. This decision was supported by the Supreme Court, agreeing that the classification declared by the manufacturer should stand. The Court found the Tribunal's decision on this matter to be correct and upheld it.

Issue 3: Imposition of Penalty
The Dy. Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Rule 173Q(bb) of the Rules. However, the Supreme Court found that there was no case for the imposition of the penalty and set it aside. The Court confirmed the rest of the Tribunal's order, including the restoration of the original decision disallowing the Modvat credit.

Issue 4: Appeal Against Tribunal's Decision
The appellant attempted to raise an alternate argument regarding the interpretation of Rule 57Q, which had not been previously presented. The Supreme Court did not allow this new submission. Ultimately, the appeal was disposed of with no costs awarded, confirming the Tribunal's decision on the classification of 'Loadall' and the disallowance of the Modvat credit, while setting aside the penalty imposed by the Dy. Commissioner.