2006 (11) TMI 212 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are:
1. Whether the inputs used in the fabrication, erection, and installation of Cold Rolling Mill can be treated as capital goods?
2. Whether Modvat credit on the inputs used in the fabrication, erection, and installation of Cold Rolling Mill was admissible under the erstwhile Rule 57A or 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944?
3. Whether the credit availed by the assessee under erstwhile Rule 57Q by misdeclaring the inputs as capital goods tantamount to suppression of facts and the provisions relating to extended period of limitation for recovery of credit wrongly availed were applicable as per erstwhile Rule 57I(1)(ii) and 57U(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944?

Summary:
The assessee claimed Modvat credit on capital goods used for the manufacture of final products in their factory, declaring the goods as parts of capital goods. The revenue alleged that the goods used were inputs and not admissible as capital goods, issuing a show cause notice. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings after finding that the goods were covered by Rule 57Q and used in manufacturing final products without suppression of facts. The revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the findings, stating that the goods were parts of capital goods and the extended period of limitation could not be invoked due to lack of suppression of facts. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, noting the absence of tangible evidence to support the revenue's stand. The revenue's appeal was ultimately dismissed as there was no substantial question of law arising.

In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed that the goods used in the fabrication, erection, or installation of the Mill could be considered capital goods. Since there was no suppression of facts, the extended period of limitation did not apply, and the proceedings were rightly dropped by the adjudicating authority, a decision upheld by the Tribunal.