2004 (1) TMI 216 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of credit amount on capital goods by the original authority.
2. Eligibility of Modvat credit on capital goods used for manufacturing both dutiable and exempted final products.
3. Interpretation of Rule 57R and Notification No. 46/97-C.E. (N.T.).
4. Comparison with previous Tribunal judgments on similar issues.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order-in-Appeal allowing the appeal of the assessee by setting aside the disallowance of credit amount on capital goods. The original authority had directed the assessee to expunge the credit amount of Rs. 1,92,828/- availed on capital goods.

2. The issue revolved around the eligibility of Modvat credit on capital goods used for manufacturing both dutiable and exempted final products. The Revenue argued that the capital goods used during the period in question were not eligible for Modvat credit due to the amendment in Notification No. 46/97-C.E. (N.T.). However, the Tribunal held that Modvat credit cannot be denied when capital goods are used for both dutiable and exempted goods, following a similar judgment in a previous case.

3. The interpretation of Rule 57R and Notification No. 46/97-C.E. (N.T.) was crucial in determining the admissibility of Modvat credit. The Tribunal noted the specific provisions and the impact of the Budget 1997 amendment on the eligibility criteria for Modvat credit on capital goods used for manufacturing different types of products.

4. The comparison with previous Tribunal judgments, specifically referring to the case of CCE, Coimbatore v. M/s. Hindustan Spinners Ltd. and Others, provided a precedent for allowing Modvat credit in situations where capital goods are used for both dutiable and exempted goods. The Tribunal upheld the order-in-appeal based on the precedent and rejected the Revenue's appeal as lacking merit.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the eligibility of Modvat credit on capital goods used for manufacturing a mix of dutiable and exempted final products, emphasizing the importance of considering previous Tribunal decisions and the specific provisions of Rule 57R and relevant notifications.