2004 (4) TMI 212 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility of credit on rough shaped ferrous or other alloy steel forgings under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules.
2. Classification of received castings as semi-finished goods.
3. Whether trimming and grooving operations amount to manufacture.
4. Applicability of Modvat credit on castings used as components in machinery.

Issue 1: Eligibility of credit on rough shaped ferrous or other alloy steel forgings under Rule 57Q of Central Excise Rules

The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad. The Revenue argued that the respondents availed credit of duty on rough shaped forgings under Rule 57Q, which they believed did not fall under the category of finished excisable goods. The respondents had received rough forged castings and further processed them to make fully finished metal rolls. The Tribunal found that the castings were used as components in the machinery after trimming and grooving, making them eligible for Modvat credit. The lower authorities correctly allowed the credit, and the appeal of the Revenue was rejected.

Issue 2: Classification of received castings as semi-finished goods

The respondents contended that the castings received were trimmed and worked to make them fit for use as Metal Rollers, which did not amount to manufacture. They argued that the processes undertaken did not change the classification or use of the goods. The Tribunal observed that the castings were cleared after payment of central excise duty under proper sub-headings and were used as components in the machine after trimming and grooving. The Tribunal concluded that the castings were not semi-finished goods and were eligible for Modvat credit.

Issue 3: Whether trimming and grooving operations amount to manufacture

The Revenue argued that the operations of trimming and grooving undertaken by the respondents on the received castings constituted manufacturing, therefore making them ineligible for credit under Rule 57Q. However, the Tribunal disagreed and held that these operations did not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal found no prohibition on the respondents to perform such operations on the components before using them in the machinery. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the operations of trimming and grooving as permissible and upheld the eligibility of Modvat credit on the castings.

Issue 4: Applicability of Modvat credit on castings used as components in machinery

The Tribunal determined that the castings, which were used as components in the machinery after trimming and grooving, were eligible for Modvat credit. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no justification to deny credit on these items as they were used as components in the machinery. The lower authorities correctly allowed the credit, and the Tribunal rejected the appeal of the Revenue, affirming the eligibility of Modvat credit on the castings used in the manufacturing process.